Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WildHorseCrash

"You are saying that unless science is party religion, then it is merely philosophy."

That was not my point. My point was that except for the equation-goverened parts of science, philosophy plays a large part of the role. As I mentioned, historical analysis has a lot to do with what someone thinks is credible. I did not say that religion will prevent science from becoming philosophy, I said that historical sciences brings in philosophy whether it wants to or not. The problem with evolution is that the ones who hold to a naturalistic philosophy simply say that their philosophy and none other should be used. There are multiple philosophies, and none of them are arrived at by science alone. Historical science is often philosophical interpretation masquerading as independent, public fact.


180 posted on 06/09/2005 10:01:13 AM PDT by johnnyb_61820
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]


To: johnnyb_61820
I said that historical sciences brings in philosophy whether it wants to or not.

The philosophy of science, to the extent there is one, is to discover the true nature of things by examining the facts, proposing hypotheses to explain those facts, making predictions based on those hypotheses, and determining whether those predictions are true (which is some confirmation of the hypothesis) or false (which proves the hypothesis is not completely correct.) This is true of all sciences, whether they are historic or whether they are physics, or otherwise. If there is any other philosophical additives that you object to, you are going to have to specify them, because they are not apparent.

The problem with evolution is that the ones who hold to a naturalistic philosophy simply say that their philosophy and none other should be used.

But, again, you are asking science to be something it is not. Science does not purport to do anything but determine the nature of things. It can only work in the natural world, because there is nothing else to test but the natural world. If you have an objection to this because you believe it is "materialistic" or "naturalistic" or whatever, then that is your philosophical objection to science, not a fault in scientific thinking.

Your religious beliefs make you believe that there is a non-natural realm where non-corporal beings exist who control and influence the natural world, but which cannot be measured, and for which there is no proof.

You object by saying that people who hold to a naturalistic philosophy hold that none other "should be used." This begs the question what you mean by "used"; used how? If you mean used to determine scientific fact or a historical fact, then damn right no other religious or supernatural philosophy should be used. Science is limited to that which can be measured and tested, which is the natural world. If there is anything else, it is not a part of science, so why should science take anything but a naturalist approach? To ask it to do otherwise is to ask it to not be science.

187 posted on 06/10/2005 5:17:39 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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