Is science at odds with philosophy?

sjastro · Mar 11, 2022

Opdrey said:
That's sad. Both because it shouldn't be moderated but also that you seem to harbor such hatred of science. Thankfully you occasionally pay lipservice by saying scientists are "Gifts from God", so it's all good. You want to say something truly hateful to God's Gifts.

The "Gifts from God" remark is a further extension of his pathological hatred of scientists.
He cannot accept scientists can achieve good things through qualities such as intelligence, hard work and dedication as these gifts were bestowed on them by God who ultimately takes the credit.
When things go wrong however such as the Hindenburg disaster, thalidomide, Challenger's O-rings or demoting Pluto's planetary status, it's all the scientists fault and God bears no responsibility.

Opdrey · Mar 11, 2022

Mountainmike said:
1/ the codex shows the L shape damage pattern of holes. It was the same shroud. Coincidence is too unlikely. Whoever drew that codex, saw the shroud.

Again, you lower the bar for evidence you like. An L-shaped "hole" in a 12th century illumination. That's one step above interpretting noise for signal.

The shroud show the real medical pathology of a man crucified by the same method as Jesus was,

Really? Given that the BIble is the only source of information on Jesus' Crucifixion and it is pretty light on medical pathology I don't know how you arrive at that point. I've seen plenty of people proposing possible scenarios based on how crucifixions would normally be done, etc. But, again, that's reasonably derivative information.

who was the only man to have been documented as crucified like that

I must have missed the detailed pathology described in the Gospels. How do you know he was the only man to have been documented as crucified "like that". I assume by your statement you are more focusing on the pre-crucifixion scourging? I'm still uncertain why you would make a universal negative claim like this.

The medical pathology was unknown at the time , so it was not forged.

So you don't think anyone in the Middle Ages would know that a nail driven into the palm would rip right out under weight but a nail placed in the wrist would be more resistant?

There is no null hypothesis.

You clearly do not understand what a null hypothesis is. And yet you claim knowledge in this area? Ummmm.

I don’t accept your very limited view of what is acceptable documentation.

Like I said, I can find a book or two that provide a lot of evidence that the moon landing was a hoax.

In some reports I wrote ( and theses)

I had 50-100 references,and so do the books I quote.

Uh huh.

Mountainmike · Mar 11, 2022

Until you behave like a scientist and actually research something before comment on straw man assumptions, there is little more to be said.

Study it and find out just how wrong you are, and how you let a priori bias interfere with all you say - discover what I actually meant by L shape. Then comment. Good order. Do not assume what others say is trivial.

I am not going to spoon feed inadequate research skills,
My message has always been: study it. Do that by buying the books to see the shape of the forest and the trees in it, then on fine detail that interests you check out papers to see a few branches although most is already in books.

It is pointless reading most of the papers however infatuated you are with them, most have been superseded. It’s how science works. The books give you the route map through them.

I should not have had to point you at the problem with fiddled data and lack of homogeneity, it is known by anyone who actually studied the shroud, and the date is long since discredited.

You are stuck in a world in which all tests can be repeated, and all things repeat. It’s true! Some niche site is like that, but certainly not all. The real world is mostly not like that, nor is much of the science I have done.
You get a one off set of data, and must infer from it what you can.

Opdrey said:
Again, you lower the bar for evidence you like. An L-shaped "hole" in a 12th century illumination. That's one step above interpretting noise for signal.

.

Opdrey · Mar 11, 2022

Mountainmike said:
Study it and find out just how wrong you are,

Here's what I find most interesting about your style of debate. Those who disagree with you are inherently WRONG WRONG WRONG. Just WRONG. If data is shown that disagrees with you it is FRAUD and LIES.

I have never once said these things (miracles, relics etc.) are by definition NOT miracles or actual holy relics. I simply fail to believe that they are as of the current state of the information I have.

I have been more than forebearant with you and I've readily agreed that there ARE things that need to be investigated further. I have also only pointed out that there is ALWAYS potential error in scientific analyses. ALWAYS. You NEVER reduce it to prefect 100% proof in the sciences.

Meanwhile you come to judge the quick and the dead. With absolute certainty. Good for you. That's religion. It isn't science. It is about as far from science as one can get.

and how you let a priori bias interfere with all you say - discover what I actually meant by L shape.

I know EXACTLY what you meant. I am just pointing out that medieval manuscripts are hadly photographic evidence.

I should not have had to point you at the problem with fiddled data

Please stop accusing people of fraud. I am begging you.

Just. Stop! It's unappealing from someone who is so clearly devoted to his faith. But in your devotion you have come to judge. Be careful lest you be judged.

Mountainmike · Mar 11, 2022

I said:
An L-shaped "pattern”
You said:
An L-shaped "hole"

The difference is chalk and cheese. Now if you had studied before comment, you would know the word “ pattern” is not so easily explained away. But you chose to comment first based on your assumption.

It wastes so much time.

I’ve given you a key issue to study. The codex. Just as I pointed out the lack of homogeneity and gradient of dates.

The rest is up to you.

I could give many more. But I am not minded to, and I should not have to! if only you dropped your resistance to books , and read a book on the present state of research you would know what the issues are , and so what of it is worth further study. Then you can dig further. It’s how you study a new area.

you sound to me like a specialist ( who knows more and more about less and less till they know everything about nothing) so technical papers is how you find limits.
It’s not like that for math modellers . We have to jump entire sectors , to apply similar math to wide rangeing areas, then make advances from there.

Most science is applied and so interdisciplinary, we had that conversation about volcanoes I think. The vulcanologists learn some biology and chemistry. The chemists learn vulcanology. They need all of the skills to comment on life and or prebiotic soup at volcanic vents .All of them learn new areas from books, and conference proceedings.

I once spent a miserable week studying such as nusselts and the dynamics of phenol formaldehyde , and thermal transfer in the bulk, just so I could then model dynamics , study the controlling massive exotherms, compare with practical reaction data. I first got the general concepts from books, tuned up with the latest from papers, ( and the catastrophe when such plants blew up ) then melded what I knew about adaptive control on uncertain measurement, and a lot of safety regulations. Next job was not even chemical engineering. So for me, getting the shape of the wood and trees from books, some nasty details from papers , then exploring the physics from there is standard. Within weeks it was looking at something different.

Fantis book is interesting on the dating methods.
Read it, then explore the detail after.

The only thing I called a fraud is the paper in nature, it was the product of arrogance, assumption , bad technique, and refusal to allow the informed to be involved.
If you read the correspondence, all the above is undeniable.

Opdrey said:
Here's what I find most interesting about your style of debate. Those who disagree with you are inherently WRONG WRONG WRONG. Just WRONG. If data is shown that disagrees with you it is FRAUD and LIES.

I have never once said these things (miracles, relics etc.) are by definition NOT miracles or actual holy relics. I simply fail to believe that they are as of the current state of the information I have.

I have been more than forebearant with you and I've readily agreed that there ARE things that need to be investigated further. I have also only pointed out that there is ALWAYS potential error in scientific analyses. ALWAYS. You NEVER reduce it to prefect 100% proof in the sciences.

Meanwhile you come to judge the quick and the dead. With absolute certainty. Good for you. That's religion. It isn't science. It is about as far from science as one can get.

I know EXACTLY what you meant. I am just pointing out that medieval manuscripts are hadly photographic evidence.

Please stop accusing people of fraud. I am begging you.

Just. Stop! It's unappealing from someone who is so clearly devoted to his faith. But in your devotion you have come to judge. Be careful lest you be judged.

Mountainmike · Mar 11, 2022

And on pathology, the issues are crown of thorns ( the only one recorded ) Lance wound ( non standard) but no broken legs ( standard) scourging with a flagrum ,also evidence of shoulder problem presumed from carrying a cross. Broken nose presumed From fall, because mineral detected in nose regions.

All blood group A/b - some mtDNA of middle eastern haplotype.

Also the mention of three cloths. Shroud. Sudarium ( face cloth) tunic, all of which exist and show forensic correspondence , but they have never been in proximity in recorded history. Only at the crucifixion.

All that is a hell of a coincidence, unless it was the same victim, the one we know.

Opdrey · Mar 11, 2022

Mountainmike said:
And on pathology, the issues are crown of thorns ( the only one recorded ) Lance wound ( non standard) but no broken legs ( standard) scourging with a flagrum ,also evidence of shoulder problem presumed from carrying a cross. Broken nose presumed From fall, because mineral detected in nose regions.

Might I remind you that if someone were to create a fake relic (as was quite common in the Middle Ages) they would utilize the Bible as primary source material and, as such, would be expected to match perfectly with the Bible accounts.

Again, NOT THAT IT MEANS it is a fake, just that this is not viable evidence per se.

AV1611VET · Mar 11, 2022

Opdrey said:
Both because it shouldn't be moderated but also that you seem to harbor such hatred of science.

Some of my best friends are scientists.

Mountainmike · Mar 11, 2022

Might I remind you of all the stuff you refuse to read.
1/ this is the shroud of an actual crucified man with all the pathology that fits.
2/ that there are several cloths that match those in the bible with a lot of forensic correspondence and they have never been in the same geographic places in recorded history , so they were not a combination fraud
3/ that common regional markers, blood types , dna and so on are in the Middle East. Mineral deposits localise it.
4/ that the sudarium provenance is a Millenium older and there is evidence the shroud is first century, ancient.
5/ the differences from iconography of the time show it is not what a fraudster would produce either.

6/ So whatever it is is is NOT a fake or constructed and not mediaeval.
7/so Let me correct your error in terminology:
It is extremely strong EVIDENCE
you mean not complete PROOF but It is as strong as the evidence for most ancient artefact identity.
8/ it is far stronger than any of the chemical conjecture of abiogenesis from chemical soup, for which there is no direct evidence but all sceptics seem to believe that,
9/ if it were not for what Jesus represented, nobody would seriously contest it.

Opdrey said:
Might I remind you that if someone were to create a fake relic (as was quite common in the Middle Ages) they would utilize the Bible as primary source material and, as such, would be expected to match perfectly with the Bible accounts.

Again, NOT THAT IT MEANS it is a fake, just that this is not viable evidence per se.

Opdrey · Mar 12, 2022

Mountainmike said:
2/ that there are several cloths that match those in the bible with a lot of forensic correspondence and they have never been in the same geographic places in recorded history , so they were not a combination fraud

Citation please.

6/ So whatever it is is is NOT a fake or constructed and not mediaeval.

That is a very strong negative claim. A real scientist would say "The data indicates it is like not fake..." or some such. Of course the data is hardly clear that it is NOT medieval in age.

The only dating techniques which take it back to early CE ages are those of Fanti and his are completely non-standard and not yet accepted by archeologists for dating things.

It is extremely strong EVIDENCE

As is the evidence that it is not the burial shroud of Jesus.

9/ if it were not for what Jesus represented, nobody would seriously contest it.

Correct. (And it would likely not even exist.)

Opdrey · Mar 12, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Some of my best friends are scientists.

Sounds like the usual "I have black friends!"

Do you tell them their life's work is "demonic"?

AV1611VET · Mar 12, 2022

Opdrey said:
Sounds like the usual "I have black friends!"

Actually I was just kidding.

Opdrey said:
Do you tell them their life's work is "demonic"?

Only insofar as it contradicts the Bible.

Opdrey · Mar 12, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Actually I was just kidding.

I figured.

Only insofar as it contradicts the Bible.

Then if you contract leprosy will you go with how the Bible deals with it? Or will you use medicine?

If you see a woman on the street who is an adultress will you immediately scream for her death?

Nope, because I'm guessing your sect adopted the wonderful concept of "Dispensationalism" invented in the 1830's by John Darby. It gets believers out from under the "less pleasant" commands of God.

Seems that when the Bible disagrees with human behavior at any given time, a new hermaneutic is invented!

AV1611VET · Mar 12, 2022

Opdrey said:
Then if you contract leprosy will you go with how the Bible deals with it?

I sure will. I'll ask Jesus to take it away.

Opdrey said:
Or will you use medicine?

I sure will. Jesus tells us to go to the doctor man when we sick.

Opdrey said:
If you see a woman on the street who is an adultress will you immediately scream for her death?

Nope. I'd do what the Pharisees did: take her to Jesus and then walk away.

Opdrey said:
Nope, because I'm guessing your sect adopted the wonderful concept of "Dispensationalism" invented in the 1830's by John Darby.

Or maybe Paul mentions it?

Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Opdrey said:
It gets believers out from under the "less pleasant" commands of God.

So does covenant theology. What's your point?

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Are all Bible doctrines "made up" to you?

Opdrey said:
Seems that when the Bible disagrees with human behavior at any given time, a new hermaneutic is invented!

Isn't a hermeneutic used to determine if said human behaviour is disagreeable in the first place?

Are you railing against hermeneutics now?

2PhiloVoid · Mar 12, 2022

Opdrey said:
Seems that when the Bible disagrees with human behavior at any given time, a new hermaneutic is invented!

I wouldn't quite say it like that ... at least not if we're going to invoke the term, "Hermeneutic."

Opdrey · Mar 12, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Are all Bible doctrines "made up" to you?

Exegeses and hermaneutics are, yeah.

The Bible clearly causes issues that require "interpretation". Look at what you do! You simply start making things up because it feels right to you. The original language of the Bible was Jacobean English? "Embedded Age"? The list goes on.

Now I am going to once again TRY to be understanding of your point which you will simply ignore. This is perfectly rational behavior for a human being. The Bible is hardly a clearly defined outline of a self-consistent theology. It starts with a localized god who is a fierce advocate for a tiny tribe of hill people in the Levant. He provides them justification for a brutal invasion and near genocide (which may or may not have actually happened in reality, more like a slow migration out of the highlands displacing the original Canaanites). It hypothesizes a Messiah which will come and free them from their bondage to outside forces (whatever they were at any given time, Babylon, Persia, etc.) and when someone shows up and says "Hey, I'm the Messiah!" a small sect of these people cling to him. He doesn't do anything Messianic as everyone assumed in the Old Testament (ie he didn't conduct any sort of military response to throw out the invading Romans etc.) but he did create, in the sects' minds a sense of CHANGE. A new order.

Then the Messiah said he'd be back soon...within their generation! Then he died and the sect was at a loss. But according to the sect he rose again! (Not uncommon for some religious groups' ideas) and was still able to be worshipped. He was going to be back soon!

But he never came back. Ten years, 100 years, 1000 years, 2000 years passed and he didn't return. But in that time the small sect found a way to open up the religion to non-Jews (that is outlined in the New Testament as Paul was taking on the Jerusalem sect). Paul helped invent Christianity from a small Jewish sect and it happened at a time that Roman roads and integeration allowed it to spread. It was established in Rome and became more and more influential. At some point the bloodthirsty Constantine decided (probably for political aims) to elevate Christianity to the leading religion in what was, up to that time, a society very open to integrating new religions and then decreeing it to be the ONLY religion. Of course his new found faith in Jesus and his message of peace and love didn't stop him from killing whomever he needed to kill, but it provided a political power lever.

In the subsequent millennia the society has changed. Society always changes. Suddenly we realized (rather late) that homosexuals were actually fully human and not abominations! We also started to realize that WOMEN were actually REAL HUMANS TOO! We began to be more "civilized" in our jurisprudence, but we didn't let it go immediately. Humans still kept murdering innocent women in the name of God as "witches" for more than a thousand years after Jesus existed. Science slowly displaced the idea of "witches" and we had to give up murdering innocent women for that crime.

The Bible has been amazingly malleable for its believers. That's cool! A religious text should be adaptable to human society. But I'm sure you will scream that it is the WORD OF GOD. GOD IS UNCHANGING. GOD IS ETERNAL. Except that even in the Bible God goes from being OK with genocide (actually ENCOURAGES it) to a God who LOVES THE WORLD SO MUCH he sacrificed himself to atone mankind to himself.

And someone can always come up with an exegesis to make the Bible say the "right" thing, but usually after the fact.

Look at how many Christians on this forum alone who will defend more guns in society even though Jesus warned that one should put away the sword because those who live by it will die by it. Nope they go RIGHT to the verse where Jesus says to get a sword.

The Bible is a buffet for beliefs. It just requires the right "key". And that key is different for different sects.

Opdrey · Mar 12, 2022

2PhiloVoid said:
I wouldn't quite say it like that ... at least not if we're going to invoke the term, "Hermeneutic."

If a hermaneutic is a means of interpreting a text with justification (as per the dictionary) then it seems quite appropriate.

AV1611VET · Mar 12, 2022

Opdrey said:
The Bible is a buffet for beliefs. It just requires the right "key". And that key is different for different sects.

This post is so full of wrong, it's not even funny.

But you do have a couple of good points in it.

AV1611VET · Mar 12, 2022

Opdrey said:
If a hermaneutic is a means of interpreting a text with justification (as per the dictionary) then it seems quite appropriate.

Hermeneutics can be a dangerous thing, and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Just ask the Crusaders, or the South before the Civil War.

That's why I like to accuse those who say slavery is condoned in the Bible ... accuse them of wanting to start another civil war.

Academics at its best (or worst, depending on your interpretation).

Neogaia777 · Mar 12, 2022

Opdrey said:
Exegeses and hermaneutics are, yeah.

The Bible clearly causes issues that require "interpretation". Look at what you do! You simply start making things up because it feels right to you. The original language of the Bible was Jacobean English? "Embedded Age"? The list goes on.

Now I am going to once again TRY to be understanding of your point which you will simply ignore. This is perfectly rational behavior for a human being. The Bible is hardly a clearly defined outline of a self-consistent theology. It starts with a localized god who is a fierce advocate for a tiny tribe of hill people in the Levant. He provides them justification for a brutal invasion and near genocide (which may or may not have actually happened in reality, more like a slow migration out of the highlands displacing the original Canaanites). It hypothesizes a Messiah which will come and free them from their bondage to outside forces (whatever they were at any given time, Babylon, Persia, etc.) and when someone shows up and says "Hey, I'm the Messiah!" a small sect of these people cling to him. He doesn't do anything Messianic as everyone assumed in the Old Testament (ie he didn't conduct any sort of military response to throw out the invading Romans etc.) but he did create, in the sects' minds a sense of CHANGE. A new order.

Then the Messiah said he'd be back soon...within their generation! Then he died and the sect was at a loss. But according to the sect he rose again! (Not uncommon for some religious groups' ideas) and was still able to be worshipped. He was going to be back soon!

But he never came back. Ten years, 100 years, 1000 years, 2000 years passed and he didn't return. But in that time the small sect found a way to open up the religion to non-Jews (that is outlined in the New Testament as Paul was taking on the Jerusalem sect). Paul helped invent Christianity from a small Jewish sect and it happened at a time that Roman roads and integeration allowed it to spread. It was established in Rome and became more and more influential. At some point the bloodthirsty Constantine decided (probably for political aims) to elevate Christianity to the leading religion in what was, up to that time, a society very open to integrating new religions and then decreeing it to be the ONLY religion. Of course his new found faith in Jesus and his message of peace and love didn't stop him from killing whomever he needed to kill, but it provided a political power lever.

In the subsequent millennia the society has changed. Society always changes. Suddenly we realized (rather late) that homosexuals were actually fully human and not abominations! We also started to realize that WOMEN were actually REAL HUMANS TOO! We began to be more "civilized" in our jurisprudence, but we didn't let it go immediately. Humans still kept murdering innocent women in the name of God as "witches" for more than a thousand years after Jesus existed. Science slowly displaced the idea of "witches" and we had to give up murdering innocent women for that crime.

The Bible has been amazingly malleable for its believers. That's cool! A religious text should be adaptable to human society. But I'm sure you will scream that it is the WORD OF GOD. GOD IS UNCHANGING. GOD IS ETERNAL. Except that even in the Bible God goes from being OK with genocide (actually ENCOURAGES it) to a God who LOVES THE WORLD SO MUCH he sacrificed himself to atone mankind to himself.

And someone can always come up with an exegesis to make the Bible say the "right" thing, but usually after the fact.

Look at how many Christians on this forum alone who will defend more guns in society even though Jesus warned that one should put away the sword because those who live by it will die by it. Nope they go RIGHT to the verse where Jesus says to get a sword.

The Bible is a buffet for beliefs. It just requires the right "key". And that key is different for different sects.

I could walk you through it and give the right "key" if you like...?

And I am probably one of the only ones who can, etc...

And I can only start by asking you, "If there was a God, and He was the absolute highest God above and beyond all and everything, etc, what do think that One, or such a One, would have to, out of necessity, be like, etc...?"

And let's start by finding out the answer to that one or that question first, and then go from there, etc, ok...?

What do you think, etc...?

What would such a One "have to be like", etc...?

And I do mean would "have to be like", etc...?

And let's just start with that one first and foremost, and go from there, ok...?

And we will get to the rest "in time", ok...?

What would such a One "have to be like", etc...?

And let's just use some very basic and simple human logic and/or reason first, and let's just forget about the Bible right now for the moment, or right at this very moment, and let's just go from there first, etc, ok...?

What would such a One "have to be like", etc...?

God Bless!

Is science at odds with philosophy?

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Critically Copernican

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Old Soul

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency