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
Placing limits to the scientific method?
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="Tomk80" data-source="post: 45855235" data-attributes="member: 33800"><p>This would, however, depend on the specific theory. For example, the 'theories' of intelligent design creationism so far are untestable. Perhaps 'discernable' is a better word here. For example, Behe's irreducible complexity concept has no way to discern his theory from 'not knowing' something and therefore fails as science.</p><p> </p><p>I would agree that we could make tests for intelligent design. Based on our knowledge of human design and genetic algorithms, for example, we could say that if we encounter something that falls in a twin-nested hierarchy, it is probably not designed. For my part, I do consider intelligent design falsified for this reason.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Citations? My suspicion would be that this would be due to community binding. For example, it has also been shown that people with a conservative background put more emphasis on community than people with a liberal background and are on average more at ease with others and more likely to seek the company of others. But due to the linkage between fundamentalism and conservatism, religious studies would show the same effects. So you'd have to control for factors like community cohesion. Did these studies do that?</p><p> </p><p>Same with prayer. Meditation has also been shown to have health benefits and prayer can be seen as a form of meditation. Is the meditative part responsible for the benefits or the 'god'-part? Has this been tested? How does meditation compare to prayer as far as health benefits go?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Science can still investigate something when it is vaguely defined. Making testable hypothesis can than lead to better, stricter definitions. Science can that way at least put a boundary on the problem. As it does with consciousness. This makes consciousness a problem that can be investigated.</p><p> </p><p>For God, we can this way at least deliminate the problem. Point is that with God, other than with consciousness, this delimination has lead to the rejection of virtually all clear definitions. This means that the only thing left is something so badly defined that it cannot be tested anymore. That makes it unscientific (or perhaps 'beyond science', as people like McGrath would like us to believe).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tomk80, post: 45855235, member: 33800"] This would, however, depend on the specific theory. For example, the 'theories' of intelligent design creationism so far are untestable. Perhaps 'discernable' is a better word here. For example, Behe's irreducible complexity concept has no way to discern his theory from 'not knowing' something and therefore fails as science. I would agree that we could make tests for intelligent design. Based on our knowledge of human design and genetic algorithms, for example, we could say that if we encounter something that falls in a twin-nested hierarchy, it is probably not designed. For my part, I do consider intelligent design falsified for this reason. Citations? My suspicion would be that this would be due to community binding. For example, it has also been shown that people with a conservative background put more emphasis on community than people with a liberal background and are on average more at ease with others and more likely to seek the company of others. But due to the linkage between fundamentalism and conservatism, religious studies would show the same effects. So you'd have to control for factors like community cohesion. Did these studies do that? Same with prayer. Meditation has also been shown to have health benefits and prayer can be seen as a form of meditation. Is the meditative part responsible for the benefits or the 'god'-part? Has this been tested? How does meditation compare to prayer as far as health benefits go? Science can still investigate something when it is vaguely defined. Making testable hypothesis can than lead to better, stricter definitions. Science can that way at least put a boundary on the problem. As it does with consciousness. This makes consciousness a problem that can be investigated. For God, we can this way at least deliminate the problem. Point is that with God, other than with consciousness, this delimination has lead to the rejection of virtually all clear definitions. This means that the only thing left is something so badly defined that it cannot be tested anymore. That makes it unscientific (or perhaps 'beyond science', as people like McGrath would like us to believe). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Placing limits to the scientific method?
Top
Bottom