Skip to comments.How our botched understanding of 'science' ruins everything
Posted on 09/19/2014 10:54:47 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
click here to read article
James Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Paul Dirac, Bill Nye.
The Left is all about wrapping itself in smart-sounding terminology. Compensating I guess for the lack of substance.
“If he is an atheist, he is a scientist. If he believes in God, he is not a scientist.”
OK, I “get” that you enjoy mocking scientists, but the fact is that science does not require any particular religious beliefs, or no beliefs, but rather allows people of all beliefs to work together on projects.
So what, exactly is your problem with that?
Did you ever see a listing of famous Christian scientists?
Here is that list of Christian scientists:
If you don't believe everything "BrojoeK" writes, you are anti-science. If you think that Bill Nye is having an affair with the Voyager Holodoc, you are anti-science. If you think Michael Behe is a scientist, you are anti-science. If you mortgaged your house to donate money to the Richard Dawikins foundation and are lucky enough to have dinner with "one of the world's greatest minds" from time to time, you are a scientist. If you think he's a gas-bag, you are anti-science. If you think there is a difference between standup comics and scientists, you are anti-science.
"What distinguishes modern science from other forms of knowledge such as philosophy is that it explicitly forsakes abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things and instead tests empirical theories through controlled investigation."The author gives no source for his definition and evidently has not studied in any depth the philosophy of science. And what are "empirical theories", if not a form of "abstract reasoning"? The statement seems self-refuting.
Way back in 1994 Stephen C. Meyer gave an account of the state of affairs of attempts to define demarcation criteria regarding what constitutes science and what does not:
As the philosopher of science Larry Laudan has shown, such contradictions have plagued the demarcation enterprise from its inception. As a result, most contemporary philosophers of science regard the question 'what distinguishes science from non-science' as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific, but whether a theory is true, or warranted by the evidence. As Laudan puts it, "If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science'. . .they do only emotive work for us." As Martin Eger has summarized, "[d]emarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world."
The Use and Abuse of Philosophy of Science: Response to J.P. Moreland
“If you don’t believe everything “BrojoeK” writes, you are anti-science.”
If you loathe, despise & mock the evidence, you are certainly anti-science, pal.
“The author gives no source for his definition and evidently has not studied in any depth the philosophy of science.”
Anybody can see that author was not talking about the philosophy of science, but rather the practice of science.
And, if you wish to speak of philosophy, then there’s one thing we know we can say about it with 100% metaphysical certainty: all philosophers, without exception, are confused.
And the reason is pretty basic: it’s because the deeper you delve into the logic of “ultimate reality” the more elusive such logic becomes, until not even the greatest minds or most powerful computers can follow it.
At that point, not wishing to jeopardize their cushy jobs by confessing “I don’t know the answer”, they fog their subject with indecipherable words, essentially blaming readers who don’t get it.
This describes all philosophers, including philosophers of science.
By sharp contrast, practical science, aka “Natural Science”, avoids all that be focusing on physical evidence, then using prescribed methods to develop hypotheses, theories &/or laws to explain & model what they see.
And what, precisely, is your problem with that?
If you mock Bill Nye, you are mocking science.
And who, exactly, would bother to mock him personally, except those who are anti-science?
If you mock BroJoeK, you are mocking science.
From which one might suppose that it doesn’t much matter who you guys mock, it’s always in the service of anti-science, right?
years ago I had a “discussion” with a lib-in-law.
Her complaint about me following the “discussion” was that I was “so certain”, implying that was a big problem.
Isn't that supposed to be the problem with "settled science"?
I guess I’m not allowed to be “certain” because I’m not one of the elite that she happened to agree with.
Once it becomes a matter of dogma, all that's left is the fight over who's dogma has to be complied with.
If you mock Bill Nye fanboys, you are anti-science. If you mock Ken Ham, you are anti-science. No wait! That can't be right. If you mock Ken Ham, you are a scientist, except if you have ever previously mocked Bill Nye or one of his fanboys--then you are anti-science.
Well, there’s the kind of science only a diminutive portion of the human race understands, and then there’s the “Science” Liberals parade around to prove their collective intelligence while branding Republicans, Conservatives, & Christians stupid.
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.