Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How to choose between creation and evolution.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 72458463" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>No, not really.</p><p></p><p>There are some <em>assumptions</em> scientists need to make to do science, such as an external world whose elements show patterns of activity that can be observed; but none of those are taken to be without question.</p><p></p><p>It's a <em>pragmatic</em> decision to assume an external reality - the alternative is solipsism; the observed patterns of activity are what lead us to <em>infer</em> laws of nature - but they're always provisional - there are no guarantees (Hume's 'problem of induction'); we <em>know</em> from experience that our senses often give us false information, and that our reasoning can be unconsciously biased, so we have developed the scientific method to try and minimise such influences on our observation and analysis.</p><p></p><p>Belief is not required, unless it is the belief that it is worthwhile to try to understand the natural world, and that experience tells us that science is the most effective means we currently have of doing so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 72458463, member: 241055"] No, not really. There are some [I]assumptions[/I] scientists need to make to do science, such as an external world whose elements show patterns of activity that can be observed; but none of those are taken to be without question. It's a [I]pragmatic[/I] decision to assume an external reality - the alternative is solipsism; the observed patterns of activity are what lead us to [I]infer[/I] laws of nature - but they're always provisional - there are no guarantees (Hume's 'problem of induction'); we [I]know[/I] from experience that our senses often give us false information, and that our reasoning can be unconsciously biased, so we have developed the scientific method to try and minimise such influences on our observation and analysis. Belief is not required, unless it is the belief that it is worthwhile to try to understand the natural world, and that experience tells us that science is the most effective means we currently have of doing so. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How to choose between creation and evolution.
Top
Bottom