Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ShadowAce
ShadowAce: "You continue to attempt to tell us what science isn't.
Please define the word for us."

Stated simply, the word "science" is short for the classical term (as used, for example, by our Founding Fathers) "natural science", meaning "natural explanations for natural processes".

"Science" is more fully defined by the term "methodological naturalism", not to be confused with similar sounding words like "philosophical naturalism", "ontological naturalism", "metaphysical naturalism" or even "scientific naturalism".
All of those other terms describe a religious-style belief in atheism.

By contrast, "methodological naturalism" requires no such atheistic beliefs.
It simply says, for scientific purposes, we will set aside everything except: natural explanations for natural processes.

And, what are sometimes called "historical sciences" (i.e., geology, astronomy, paleontology) also include a key assumption, known as "uniformitarianism", meaning: the present is key to understanding the past.
In other words, physical processes we see in operation today can be used to explain physical evidence we find from the past -- for example, Plate Tectonics.

ShadowAce: "And do not hide behind the idiocy that is "whatever scientists say it is."

That's not "idiocy", since the "right" of anti-scientists like yourself to redefine what is, or is not, "science" was presented to and ruled on by the US Supreme Court -- and you have no such "right".

Real scientists will tell us what they consider to be, and not to be, "science".
Anti-scientists, like yourself, can blabber whatever you wish on the subject, but by law, your words are meaningless.

Is that simple enough for you?

265 posted on 08/20/2014 6:37:45 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK
Show me where I re-defined anything. You can't. I used the dictionary definition. You, though, are redefining the word to exclude the things you find uncomfortable. I notice it took five days for you to come up with that "definition."

Your link to methodological naturalism is a classic example. That process--from the very beginning, before even considering any questions--eliminates those areas the followers find uncomfortable.

True science does not eliminate anything beforehand. Your desire to do so indicates bias, and therefore, application of that is not actual science.

267 posted on 08/20/2014 6:43:02 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson