Can you give an example of these "other realms" where the scientific method is ineffectual?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can you give an example of these "other realms" where the scientific method is ineffectual?It is because of this narrow-sighted belief of yours that we cannot have a constructive discussion. You immediately judge the other person incompetent without even listening to their argument itself, because such argument does not fit into your preconcieved ruleset on how to measure self and reality. On this basis, it becomes useless to present and/or substantiate assertions with you.
Self-scrutiny, or scrutinizing other realms where it's methods are ineffectual in the first place?
There is no fear of non-scientific perspectives. There are quite a lot of scientists who are, for example, theists. They will gladly admit that there position is not scientific. But when practicing science, where being able to discern between to opposing viewpoints is necessary, this must be based on logic and evidence.Why is this dangerous to scientists? Why is there fear of non-scientific perspectives?
I have no desire to lift any constraints from science. Rather, it is my preference that science lift it's constraints from non-scientific realms, because it lacks credible authority there in the first place. Science is unqualified to measure non-scientific realms.But science doesn't place constraints on non-scientific realms. "Science" isn't a person that does something at some point in time. Science is a method used by scientists while doing science. Some scientists, and I am one of those, will use this method more for important questions in their daily life. But that is not a defining characteristic of scientists, it is a subgroup of scientists that do this.
You are basically setting up a false dichotomy here that does not exist in reality.
I agree. But when practicing science, it must be. And I carry this position over in my daily life, where I will regard claims that cannot be tested with a lot more scrutiny. But my position is my own. It is not a defining characteristic of scientists.Not all evidence is scientifically testable.
Again the false dichotomy. Many scientists are theists, and know and fully admit that their stance is not scientific.My guess is that they fear it because then they cannot "win". Their view is that if one position is as good as any other, what is the point of debating it? That's what happens when scientists debate. It is all about what is testable.
No, this is because those other people claim to have scientific evidence. 'Scientific' creationists claim to have evidence for their position which logically leads to the conclusion of creationism. This is demonstrably false.That's also why they end up in a frenzy against non-scientists, who are more used to the liberal arts-style debate, where hard numbers are not required, just fast wits and good debating style.
Being a scientists does not mean that one is automatically an atheist
This last summer, I saw that for the very first time. Before that one unique encounter I wouldn't have believed you. But that was just one case of any evolutionist ever doing that, and I've been in these crevo forums way too long. What I normally see, and what I have always consistently seen have been creationists claiming infallible knowledge of the unknown. To date, I've only seen a handful of exceptions to that rule, and they were all converts to the evolutionary mindset.I fully agree.
Yet I see both creationists and evolutionists who insist that there evaluative methods are without weakness or error. They can't be wrong and are afraid of scrutiny.
As far as I can tell, all you did in 272 was talk about how thorough an agnostic you are without saying much in the way of how or why your uber-agnosticism is warranted.I had presented some assertions in post #272 which you had failed to address. I had also asked you to advance your perspectives. Instead, you merely respond with naysaying yourself.
Am I? You've done little but claim that science simply wilts under your skeptical gaze. Where does the breakdown occur?Your spreading propaganda now, and merely getting accusatory without providing substantial basis for your assertions. At this point, you're just providing multiple quick quips, versus substantiating your assertions.
I suggest that this problem originates with yourself.What I do have a problem is people believing in something with total and absolute certainty in the utter absence of any solid evidence.
So? And why is this a problem for you? Is this a control thing again?Such beliefs are irrational by their very nature, and irrational beliefs promote irrational thinking.
You're both generalizing and projecting.I am affronted by such beliefs because I see those holding similar beliefs attacking science all the time.
If you continue seeing yourself as a constant victim, you will never overcome your superstitions.The worst offenders in the US today are the fundamentalist Christians, but they are not the only offender.
It's too bad that they have to be in a conflict in the first place.My guess is that they fear it because then they cannot "win".
Their view is that if one position is as good as any other, what is the point of debating it? That's what happens when scientists debate. It is all about what is testable.
That's also why they end up in a frenzy against non-scientists, who are more used to the liberal arts-style debate, where hard numbers are not required, just fast wits and good debating style.
I'm referring to religious or metaphysical realms, for example. Or even areas of law or philosophy where scientific methods aren't always applicable.Can you give an example of these "other realms" where the scientific method is ineffectual?
But science doesn't place constraints on non-scientific realms. "Science" isn't a person that does something at some point in time.
Science is a method used by scientists while doing science. Some scientists, and I am one of those, will use this method more for important questions in their daily life. But that is not a defining characteristic of scientists, it is a subgroup of scientists that do this.
To say that there are things all people refuse to debate is uncontroversial. How does this indict creation/evolution perspectives?I know that, because I am a scientist. I am also a Christian. My point, from personal experience being around other scientists, is that they don't generally like to engage in academic debates that aren't based solely on evidence.
Nothing sends most scientists off the deep end quicker than debating a strongly held opinion that is not based on cold, hard numbers. Many of the scientific believers that I know hold their beliefs strongly, but they won't debate them because they know their beliefs are based on opinion and personal experience and are, thus, undebatable from a scientific perspective.
Which 'academic debates' are you referring to?I know that, because I am a scientist. I am also a Christian. My point, from personal experience being around other scientists, is that they don't generally like to engage in academic debates that aren't based solely on evidence.
But now it seems that you are not referring to 'academic debate' but to debate about personal beliefs. I would agree that scientists are more likely to carry this perspective over to their daily lives, I do that too. What kind of settings are you talking about here, can you give an example?Nothing sends most scientists off the deep end quicker than debating a strongly held opinion that is not based on cold, hard numbers. Many of the scientific believers that I know hold their beliefs strongly, but they won't debate them because they know their beliefs are based on opinion and personal experience and are, thus, undebatable from a scientific perspective.
Why do you tend to think of it as the more academic variety? Seems to me the latter is more of a political or worldview debate, which I would consider anything but the more academic side.A similar example would be the abortion debate.
Two debators can argue the pros and cons of legalized abortion based on statistics alone. Either side can be proved based on the relative skills of the two debators. Scientists would tend to be very comfortable participating in such a debate.
The two debators can also argue the ethics of abortion, bringing in moralistic arguments, which are based more on opinion than on statistics. The scientists I know would tend to be considerably less comfortable participating in this kind of debate. I tend to think of this kind of debate as being the more academic variety.
Perhaps she meant this definition of academic:Why do you tend to think of it as the more academic variety? Seems to me the latter is more of a political or worldview debate, which I would consider anything but the more academic side.
From the definition of the adjective form of academic from http://www.webster.com3 b : having no practical or useful significance
I wouldn't go that strong. But it is close. I attended a liberal arts university, and the joke was that you could take any position in a paper and get an 'A' if you were skillful enough at arguing the point.
[emphasis mine]I wouldn't go that strong. But it is close. I attended a liberal arts university, and the joke was that you could take any position in a paper and get an 'A' if you were skillful enough at arguing the point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?