Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
"Wrong. We draw subjective conclusions and inferences from objective evidence."
No, we arrive at objective evidence by subjecting the evidence to testability and repeatability.
"Wrong. Inferences cannot be made apart from human assumptions and limitations."
Inferences can be tested and these tests repeated. They can be made objective.
"Yes, I chose ID subjectively because it is what best fits the objective evidence. Get it?"
Yes. You are incredibly confused. :)
But surely scientists take sides in debates over competing theories. Why would that be wrong? Merely to do research on one theory and not the other would be a subjective decision. Humans can't help being subjective to an extent.
The thing is, a scientist could deliver a purely objective discourse on nature, and then conclude it by subjectively stating that his observations have led him to conclude that nature is all that exists and there is no God, and it wouldn't raise many eyebrows. But a scientist who followed a similar objective discourse with a statement of faith ("My observations of the workings of nature have strengthened my belief in a deity") would likely become marginalized in the scientific community.
My New Year's resolution is to stop feeding trolls. Seems you learned that lesson a long time ago.
Not true.. the Godometer is called your spirit.. your human spirit.. Your spirit is one thing your body is another.. Scientific Godology studies God thru spiritual dialog with that Spirit(God).. The body is just a machine.. an organitic machine.. The spirit is what life IS.. when the spirit leaves the body dies.. Only the body dies, the spirit lives on.. someplace else.. When the body is spiritually untenable the spirit leaves..
Scientific Godology studies universal reality, Carnal(body) science studies merely third dimensional reality.. which is part of universal reality but only a part.. Seek to know your Godometer and then you can really begin a scientific study of things that are real.. Until then, you are a machine, like a computer, trying to make sense of things beyond the machines ability to grasp..
I was a computer programmer back when there were few computer programmers(1967).. Computers are still only as smart as the programmer(s) is/are.. Machines know nothing.. and carnal knowledge is much ado about nothing.. At least consider it.. The Sheep must be separated from the goats.. (spiritual from the carnal) and the plan is working brillantly..
"But surely scientists take sides in debates over competing theories. Why would that be wrong? Merely to do research on one theory and not the other would be a subjective decision. Humans can't help being subjective to an extent."
To an extent, surely. But the standard is still objectivity over subjectivity.
"The thing is, a scientist could deliver a purely objective discourse on nature, and then conclude it by subjectively stating that his observations have led him to conclude that nature is all that exists and there is no God, and it wouldn't raise many eyebrows."
I think it would, if it was presented in a scientific journal for instance.
"But a scientist who followed a similar objective discourse with a statement of faith ("My observations of the workings of nature have strengthened my belief in a deity") would likely become marginalized in the scientific community."
Not if their research is not predicated on their extra-scientific beliefs. Kenneth R. Miller for instance is a well known Catholic evolutionary biologist.
I see.. you gotta be whom you are.. I have no problem with that..
No bleating from you then.. thats as it should be..
What a plan.. Is God COOL or What?...
God has revealed Himself in many ways: in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, in Scripture, in Creation (heaven and earth, spiritual and physical).
I expect Scripture and Creation to agree and I have never been disappointed.
IMHO, those who become disappointed have mis-interpreted something or, worse, have put their personal doctrinal template over their Spiritual eyes/ears. The most logical cause of a conflict is mortal interpretation - doctrine or tradition of men (Mark 7:7) or a misunderstanding of science/math/philosophy.
Spiritual Truth is hidden in plain view. Christ spoke in parables - tiny myths - to reveal truth so that only those who had "ears to hear" would.
Likewise the Scriptures are just text on paper to many - but to those in whom the Spirit dwells, the Truth is brought alive within. Without that first, direct Spiritual revelation that "Jesus Christ is Lord" - one cannot hear or see. It is the "Rosetta stone" for Truth.
As hosepipe would say, is God cool or what?
But basically the thought put forward was science can't be allowed to shed new light on what are long held scriptural beliefs.
True.. without that epiphany, truth is hieroglyphics..
i.e. pretty pictures, pictogram's, theory.. even opinion or qualia..
But with the Rosetta stone, the conversation becomes transcendent of time.. truth becomes knowable and doable.. Because if "its" true.. it was true, then, as well as now.. else its not true at all.. Theory is not truth, theory is merely the Question asked.. The truth is an/the answer to the question.. i.e. What is gravity?... Nobody knows.. We just know that it is..
Nope. The evidence is objective to begin with. We do our best to objectively test it, and repeat those tests. From those tests we draw subjective conclusions and inferences. Subjectivity cannot be entirely removed from the human observer. That does not mean human observers are unscientific.
"The evidence is objective to begin with."
The only way we can arrive at objective evidence is by testing the evidence. The only way we can know if something is objective is by having more than one person examine it.
"We do our best to objectively test it, and repeat those tests. From those tests we draw subjective conclusions and inferences."
No, YOU draw subjective inferences. Scientists draw objective ones.
"Subjectivity cannot be entirely removed from the human observer."
That doesn't mean objectivity can't exist in our decisions. You are claiming that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims in science. This is nonsense.
You're making a circular argument. The evidence is objective, and it can even be objectively tested on a repeated basis. But the inferences and conclusions made by the observer on the basis of those tests depends upon the biases and assumptions of the observer. Those biases ands assumptions are subjective. They are created by the observer, not by the evidence. The evidence does not change itself or make assumptions about itself. The one observing the evidence does.
You are claiming that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims in science.
This is nonsense.
" You're making a circular argument. The evidence is objective, and it can even be objectively tested on a repeated basis."
No, I am saying we have no way to know if the evidence is objective until it is tested. Basic epistemology.
"But the inferences and conclusions made by the observer on the basis of those tests depends upon the biases and assumptions of the observer."
No, exactly wrong. It depends on the objective evidence that is gathered.
"This is nonsense."
Yes, it IS nonsense. That anybody would think that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims is illogical. Yet, you do.
Indeed, Truth is timeless and transcendent and thus can only come from God. It cannot be perceived by reasoning alone because of the observer problem - we are part of what we seek to observe.
BS. I have objective evidence that you exist right before my eyes. It is self-evident, and it does not have to be "tested" first to be objective.
That anybody would think that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims is illogical.
It is not "illogical." It is a simple statement that may be true or false; reasonable or unreasonable. In this case it is unreasonable, and for that reason I have not made such a statement. I have never believed subjectivity to be the "basis of all knowledge." I have claimed, and continue to maintain, that science cannot entirely divest itself of subjectivity any more than it can entirely divest itself of human observers.
I have noticed that in my dreams I am the observer, the players even the one playing ME(if present) are players, actors.. but I am the observer watching a play, a skit.. When the observer(me) trys to participate, I wake up.. every time..
The human body needs sleep, the human spirit does not.. Could be that dreams are merely something to keep the human spirit busy while the body sleeps.. else what is the purpose of dreams.. Why would a human spirit need rest.?.
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.