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
Human 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="SelfSim" data-source="post: 76826413" data-attributes="member: 354922"><p>Yet <em>even more</em> philosophical mumbo-jumbo ..</p><p></p><p>There's no need to <em>rule out</em> 'existence' or 'consciousness', as they do in that description. Doing so, serves as a demonstration of seeking a presupposed 'truth' of our situation .. which must be sorted out at whatever the cost, (.. a bit of my figurative rhetoric there). Its not science.</p><p></p><p>The scientific thinker however will seize upon anything they see which can be turned into practical usefulness, as in <em>'forming testable hypotheses from'</em> such ideas. There's no <em>assumptions</em> that things have to be ruled out before starting the scientific method .. no matter what you may have been led to believe about that (eg: the presupposed materialism nonsense everyone seem to love talking about here at CFs) .. there's no assumptions spelled out whatsoever in that method description. My evidence for that, is just look at any simple (baggage-free) reputable references to, (or widely taught), steps in the scientific method. There is nothing that says: first rule out <em>'that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness)'</em> or, <em>'that the universe has no independent existence'</em> in the scientific method, is there?</p><p></p><p>PS: Here's one:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]319056[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SelfSim, post: 76826413, member: 354922"] Yet [I]even more[/I] philosophical mumbo-jumbo .. There's no need to [I]rule out[/I] 'existence' or 'consciousness', as they do in that description. Doing so, serves as a demonstration of seeking a presupposed 'truth' of our situation .. which must be sorted out at whatever the cost, (.. a bit of my figurative rhetoric there). Its not science. The scientific thinker however will seize upon anything they see which can be turned into practical usefulness, as in [I]'forming testable hypotheses from'[/I] such ideas. There's no [I]assumptions[/I] that things have to be ruled out before starting the scientific method .. no matter what you may have been led to believe about that (eg: the presupposed materialism nonsense everyone seem to love talking about here at CFs) .. there's no assumptions spelled out whatsoever in that method description. My evidence for that, is just look at any simple (baggage-free) reputable references to, (or widely taught), steps in the scientific method. There is nothing that says: first rule out [I]'that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness)'[/I] or, [I]'that the universe has no independent existence'[/I] in the scientific method, is there? PS: Here's one: [ATTACH]319056[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Human Evolution
Top
Bottom