Posted on 12/19/2004 5:19:27 PM PST by bondserv
Wow. What a clear example of ideology trumping reason.
Even evolutionists refer to hard sciences vs. soft sciences. I don't suspect you knew that.
> I don't suspect you knew that.
You suspect a lot of things that aren't so, and don't suspect a lot of things that are.
So... what exactly is not "hard science" about geology?
If you understand the difference between hard and soft sciences, you understand what makes them so. Do you understand the difference?
| If so, give me an example of a soft science besides psychology and evolution. |
>>So... what exactly is not "hard science" about geology?
You didn't answer the question.
>give me an example of a soft science besides psychology and evolution.
A: Evolution is not a "soft science." it is the end result of a number of hard sciences including chemistry and geology.
B: Poli-Sci
During the 130 years from 1600 - 1730 more new scientific discoveries occurred than in all of the previous years of mankind. Built on the backs of these men our modern industrial, medical, technological, communication, transportation and space exploration have enabled mankind to live in a completely different world than previously.
I don't consider geology a soft science but geology is not the same thing as evolution. I remember one of my geology teachers telling the class that certain aspects of geology, such as the relative ages of the layers, are speculative. Of course they are for many reasons, the least of which is their vastly increasing age over the 20th century, going from millions to billions in a few short years. This means their dates are estimated. Estimation does not fall in the realm of hard science.
You've shifted your position. First, you said no knowledge is possible without experimentation -- now, you've broadened the source of knowledge to include "observational data". That is a huge shift. You may not recognize it.
You've also excluded "value judgements" from the category "real knowledge". I assume by "value judgements" you mean such things as "it is bad to steal" and "I should keep my promises".
If knowledge does not include such things, then you're simply defining knowledge as you go, in a logical circle -- or, you simply modify the possible sources of "real knowledge" so that it eventually gets so big it is a synonym for "living".
The truth is, you have a logical problem created by the absolute nature of the epistemological ground you staked out: NO KNOWLEDGE EXCEPT BY EXPERIMENTATION. It only requires ONE INSTANCE of you using knowledge -- OR THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY CALLED KNOWLEDGE -- one instance to demonstrate you don't really think that way.
I'm not asking you to say that evolution is false or Christianity is true or science is not wonderful or opinion is the same as fact or Plato was a good guy or Aristotle a schmuk or broccolli is grand or any of the other irrelevant things you want to transmute the issue into.
NOBODY has ever been able to defend the notion that the human mind is a tabula rasa. There is always an axiom at the bottom, which simply is there, and cannot be derived, from experimentation or any thing else.
I'm so, so sorry.
> First, you said no knowledge is possible without experimentation
Let's jsut check on that:
You said: You think the only valid knowledge is what is produced by experimentation.
I replied: Anything else is unsubstantiated guesswork.
The position holds, and so far without valid counter by yourself.
> "it is bad to steal" and "I should keep my promises".
While *generally* good ideas, those are not "facts." A "fact" in the case of the former would be "If I were to steal, the consequences could be X."
> you're simply defining knowledge as you go, in a logical circle
Incorrect. Knowledge is simply "known fact."
> geology is not the same thing as evolution.
Geology provides adequate evidence of evolution.
> Estimation does not fall in the realm of hard science.
Yes, it does. All measurements are estimations. Look at charts of data from the hardest science you can find, and you'll see error bars.
This is a tautology!
This is all over your head. Regards.
Ah, I get it now. You're a liberal arts major. Probably philosophy, or some such other arcane and basically useless course. Always looking to make the simple and straightforward more complex than needed.
Go ahead and believe that opinions are "knowledge." Heck, go ahead and believe that Ren & Stimpy is wisdom for all I care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.