Posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Books on scientific method are, at best, just descriptions of what scientists do. At worst, they are just philosophers' wet dreams. Scientists in general never consult philosophers about what they should be doing.
Science does not seek truth. It seeks knowledge. There is a difference. Knowledge is always incomplete and tentative. Knowledge has the attributes of utility and degrees of confidence, but never has certainty and logical perfection.
Astrology is nothing compared to the true doctrine of Scientology. Imagine how nuts Tom Cruise would be without the assistance of his auditors.
Actually, someone has imagined this, and made a movie about it.
Bowfinger.
OK, here goes. A reasonable conjecture is one that suggests further research to find confirming or contracicting evidence. Any conjecture that does not have within it the suggestion of possible disconfirming evidence is not part of science.
Theories are, in general, conjectures that are rich in detail and which have withstood many years of inquiry.
Regarding astrology, to the extent that it attempts to make predictions, the predictions are wrong. For the most part, what passes for astrology in newspaper colums is just randomly sorted platitudes that apply equally to everyone.
You have such a way of presenting things that justify some people's erroneous preconceptions that it's amazing.
Anyway, the concept that one's birthday is related to their personality or "luck" is just ridiculous. The evidence of fraternal twins should easily demonstrate the falicy of astrology.
Science in no way supports astrology. Why you equate the two is a mystery. Except that it is a handy rhetorical tool for you to bash your demon, evolution, without any real argument in hand.
Didn't notice much color change but my wallet got a lot lighter.
When reaching for dung to fling, any old dung will do.
I would not go so far as to insist on every American Indian creation myth, or other rare and esoteric religions, but one can logically find in a court of law that failure to equally represent say, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Shinto would be "unconstitutional"...
That is one of the reasons I have been posting the creation stories! Very perceptive. But, why would the lesser ones be excluded? I'm partial to Old Man Coyote stories myself.
WOW. I never really looked at what Scientology was teaching.
Bowfinger? Haven't seen it yet.
Will be my turn next.
Perhaps you could go into Radio Astrolgy. I bet it pays better.
Worked for Syndey Omar.
LOL! I bet it would too. :-)
However, my morals would not let me fleece someone.
LOL! Guess it did.
"If God didn't want them to be fleeced, He wouldn't have made them sheep." (attrib. Tuco Ramiriz)
LOL!
"I like big fat men like you. When they fall they make more noise."
"When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
".. . you're the son of a thousand fathers, all bastards like you."
First you say the predictions of astrology are generally "wrong," then you say they are platitudes that could just as easily apply to anybody.
I do not consider astrology to be a strong science. It fails, by and large, to connect direct observation and testability with predictability. But I consider it to be science inasmuch as it is a body of "knowledge" collected over time.
Evolutionism, to the extent it attempts to reconstruct history, is not much different. The assumptions of evolutionism make for an easy way to construct platitutdes that could just as easily apply to any thing. It is apparent that evolutionism may be confusing common ancestry for common design.
It it no mystery that, if one takes the fundamental assumptions of evolutionism seriously, he will be able to interpret the evidence accordingly. The same goes for creationism. I don't think either one belongs in the science classroom per se, but I think both views are worthy of consideration and discussion.
I happen to be a young earth creationist. Although I do not have an exact figure and can only surmise from texts and evidence that have come my way, millions and billions of years are not necessary to explain what we see today. My understanding is based on what has been recorded in human language and reported through the generations that have preceded me. So far the manner and degree of order demonstrated by the universe leads me to agree with the biblical texts which declare it to be the subject and object of an almighty Creator.
If others want to come along and say this it not so, then I'll leave it for them to explain how order can come about apart from an intelligent agent. So far, as you know, I have hardly been convinced.
But again, this whole discussion, while it has a place, is outside of what science in the strict sense is all about.
"Evolutionism" is the word I have been using. By that I mean the notion that all life is derivative of a common ancestor. I do NOT equate it with astrology in terms of certitude, but consider it to be similar because it takes inferences and declares them with certitude. At least astrology deals with a body of evidence currently operative and does not make claims about billions of years of unobserved, unrecorded history.
I suppose if you consider astrology to be a body of knowledge, that pretty much says it all.
There are popular writings about evolution that indeed sound circular in their reasoning. I will grant you that. But there are also dreadfully written articles and books about physics and mathematics.
And religion.
If you wish to score points by picking apart straw men, go for it.
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.