Is Science defined as Truth-seeking?

[grasping the after wind]

Science is defined as "Knowledge". The word Science means "to know" or "knowing", just as Conscience means "with knowledge".

That's a poor definition then. "To seek knowledge" would be a better one. Science can be an exercise in truth-seeking unless one decides in advance of all the evidence what one's conclusion will be and refusing to hear objections calling those raising objections objectors names rather than dealing with the objections. The same is true of religion, it can be a way truth- seeking unless one is unopen to new ideas and name calls rather than deals with those new ideas. That is why there is such a similarity between the words heretic and denier. They are words used to smear anyone daring to dissent while refusing to deal with the objections raised.

 

[grasping the after wind]

lol, you got a source to back up this ludicrous claim?

Yeah. My source is called a sense of humor and a brain that can function logically. Einstein challenged the consensus thinking( probably an actual 97% or more consensus and one dependent upon faith alone based upon a statistical con job. ). And that was on a subject that was considered much more solidly shown to be the case than the reliability and validity of present modeling on future climate change has been shown to be. Had the entrenched interests of Einstein's time been as reactionary and as intolerant of dissent as the climate change zealots of today he would surely have been labelled a denier.

 

[tas8831]

Having knowledge and applying knowledge are not the same thing.

True. But then, not having knowledge and applying one's ignorance while implying that they are correct is a common feature among deniers.

Most people have the knowledge to properly order their lives, but they don't possess the ability or desire to do so.

If you say so. I know of many people that think they possess more knowledge than they do.

 

[ruthiesea]

Science does not seek “truth”. It strives to gain knowledge of the universe that G-d created.
You will certainly not doubt the necessity of studying astronomy and physics, if you are desirous of comprehending the relation between the world and Providence as it is in reality, and not according to imagination. ~ Maimonides

 

[OldWiseGuy]

True. But then, not having knowledge and applying one's ignorance while implying that they are correct is a common feature among deniers.


If you say so. I know of many people that think they possess more knowledge than they do.

The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

Yeah. My source is called a sense of humor and a brain that can function logically. Einstein challenged the consensus thinking( probably an actual 97% or more consensus and one dependent upon faith alone based upon a statistical con job. ). And that was on a subject that was considered much more solidly shown to be the case than the reliability and validity of present modeling on future climate change has been shown to be. Had the entrenched interests of Einstein's time been as reactionary and as intolerant of dissent as the climate change zealots of today he would surely have been labelled a denier.

I have 142 IQ, a BS in Engineering from Purdue, 15 years experience in the Mental Health industry, and 11 years experience in Business Intelligence and I count all this as NOTHING. The brain is corrupted by sin from birth, just like the heart, the eyes, the soul, and the spirit. It has to be WASHED, RENEWED, TRANSFORMED by God, no matter how smart or "logical" it is.

As God in Paul says "The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14)

 

[bhsmte]

Christians; imperfect humans, are stumbling their way to heaven.
Unbelievers, imperfect humans, are stumbling their way to hell.

Prove it!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Prove it!

I take it on faith.

 

[bhsmte]

I take it on faith.

Thats cool. Just your opinion then.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thats cool. Just your opinion then.

Largely, yes.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah. My source is called a sense of humor and a brain that can function logically. Einstein challenged the consensus thinking( probably an actual 97% or more consensus and one dependent upon faith alone based upon a statistical con job. ). And that was on a subject that was considered much more solidly shown to be the case than the reliability and validity of present modeling on future climate change has been shown to be. Had the entrenched interests of Einstein's time been as reactionary and as intolerant of dissent as the climate change zealots of today he would surely have been labelled a denier.

So you got nothing and you're just wasting our time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you got nothing and you're just wasting our time.

If I may, you just don't understand what he meant. A poster recently denied one of the laws of hydrology in order to debunk one of my flood claims. That's extreme denial.

 

[Kylie]

If I may, you just don't understand what he meant. A poster recently denied one of the laws of hydrology in order to debunk one of my flood claims. That's extreme denial.

And yet you can't shed any light onto what he actually does mean? That doesn't provide anything useful at all.

 

[HitchSlap]

If I may, you just don't understand what he meant. A poster recently denied one of the laws of hydrology in order to debunk one of my flood claims. That's extreme denial.

You misapplied hydrology to support the flood myth, IIRC.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You misapplied hydrology to support the flood myth, IIRC.

I used hydrology to support my flood version.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I used hydrology to support my flood version.

And a good laugh was had by all. You used the simplest idealized little trace of it and thought that you could apply it to the world with all of its variety.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And a good laugh was had by all. You used the simplest idealized little trace of it and thought that you could apply it to the world with all of its variety.

Are saying that water flows uphill?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And a good laugh was had by all. You used the simplest idealized little trace of it and thought that you could apply it to the world with all of its variety.

Regardless of terrain water follows the laws of hydrology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regardless of terrain water follows the laws of hydrology.

Yes, but you did not follow the laws of hydrology. That was an example of extreme Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, but you did not follow the laws of hydrology. That was an example of extreme Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Are you saying that the laws of hydrology don't apply to a mythical flood?