10 commandments for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers - Page 12

thomastwo · 08-08-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

Yes, I'm sure that I stand corrected. And what's an "unnatural science?"

Well natural science is based on empiricism. Read Popper or any text book on the philosophy of science. An unnatural science would be based on rationalism. Like math and logic.

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

No, he used to Google to verify that logic and mathematics are sciences.

Davin found a definition that met the cause but without really understanding the implications for his and your argument.

Actually I like your and his position. Meaning that empiricism is not the only way to gain knowledge. It's basically my position and if we have to use the broader definition of science to get you to accept it then fine.

Davin · 08-08-2012, 01:18 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

I don't think misquoting is a useful way to have a conversation.

And yet you do it.

Davin · 08-08-2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Davin found a definition that met the cause but without really understanding the implications for his and your argument.

thomastwo: Math and logic are not science.

Reality: Maths and logic are sciences.

thomastwo: Ah, but pointing out that I was wrong is a circular argument and pointing out that I made a factually incorrect statement means that you don't understand your own argument.

Right...

Irreligious · 08-08-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Well natural science is based on empiricism. Read Popper or any text book on the philosophy of science. An unnatural science would be based on rationalism. Like math and logic.

I see. Do the natural sciences eschew mathematics and logic, i.e, rationalism?

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Davin found a definition that met the cause but without really understanding the implications for his and your argument.

Which are?

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Actually I like your and his position. Meaning that empiricism is not the only way to gain knowledge. It's basically my position and if we have to use the broader definition of science to get you to accept it then fine.

Are you saying that the scientific method is strictly about what one can observe and that in the process of testing what one observes, neither the application of mathematics or logic is required? That doesn't sound right to me. I mean, any fool can observe an apple falling from a tree, but that's not all there is to the scientific method, particularly when one is seeking to understand why the apple doesn't just float up into space instead. The application of mathematics and logic are vital in that endeavor, no?

thomastwo · 08-08-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

I see. Do the natural sciences eschew mathematics and logic, i.e, rationalism?

The natural sciences and natural science are not the same thing. Be careful.

The scientific method depends on logic and may use mathematics as rational tools to move from hypothesis to observation to theory. But there is no natural science without empirical observations.

Here's another question for you. Can Math and Logic be sources of knowledge other than when they are used as part of the scientific method? I say yes because rational thought can produce knowledge (2 + 2 = 4 etc).

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

Which are?

Empiricism is not the only way to acquire knowledge.

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

Are you saying that the scientific method is strictly about what one can observe and that in the process of testing what one observes, neither the application of mathematics or logic is required? That doesn't sound right to me. I mean, any fool can observe an apple falling from a tree, but that's not all there is to the scientific method, particularly when one is seeking to understand why the apple doesn't just float up into space instead. The application of mathematics and logic are vital in that endeavor, no?

See above.

thomastwo · 08-08-2012, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Davin wrote

thomastwo: Math and logic are not science.

Reality: Maths and logic are sciences.

thomastwo: Ah, but pointing out that I was wrong is a circular argument and pointing out that I made a factually incorrect statement means that you don't understand your own argument.

Right...

I still don't think that misquoting is a useful way to have a conversation.

Davin · 08-08-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

I still don't think that misquoting is a useful way to have a conversation.

I didn't misquote anything:

Mine:

Quote:

thomastwo: Math and logic are not science.

What you actually said:

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Yes. But Logic and Math are not science.

Do tell me how that is a misquote.

Mine:

Quote:

Reality: Maths and logic are sciences.

Are you going to say that maths and logic aren't science?

Mine:

Quote:

thomastwo: Ah, but pointing out that I was wrong is a circular argument and pointing out that I made a factually incorrect statement means that you don't understand your own argument.

What you said about me pointing out that you were wrong.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

This is a kind of circular argument. [...] But perhaps I was wrong and in fact you were meaning to create a circular argument? Please clarify.

And what you responded to Irreligious about me pointing out that you were wrong:

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Davin found a definition that met the cause but without really understanding the implications for his and your argument.

There is no misquoting. But good on you for lying

thomastwo · 08-08-2012, 02:02 PM

thomastwo: Ah, but pointing out that I was wrong is a circular argument and pointing out that I made a factually incorrect statement means that you don't understand your own argument.

This is a misquote. Simple as.

Davin · 08-08-2012, 02:15 PM

Did you not try to say that by my pointing out your error that it was "a kind of circular argument"? I linked to you saying that.

Did you not also tell Irreligious that me pointing out that you were wrong meant that I did not understand my own argument as the link to you saying that shows?

There is a difference between a misquote (in that I'm not quoting you accurately), and paraphrasing (which is restating something in another way).

So it's not a misquote, but a paraphrasing. Keep up the lying

Irreligious · 08-08-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Then we agree that it is possible to have blind faith in science in the instance where there is a trusted authority. While you are right that in that case the person has faith in the authority, it would be bizarre to think that they did not also have faith in science.

No, we don't agree on your assertion. As I keep saying, the scientific method has nothing to do with faith. If we want, we can blindly trust those toiling in the various scientific fields of endeavor, but we know the method, itself, works. Faith is not required for us to know that, as we see the results of that method in play constantly.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Claims either have evidence or they don't. It's irrelevant if they are "scientific" or "religious".

The vast majority of religious claims do not require any verifiable evidence (i.e., assertions of gods, resurrected bodies, heaven, hell), but scientific claims do (E=mc2).

Typically, when scientists speculate (and, of course, they have to when they exceed their base of knowledge), they make it clear that that is what they're doing, but it's still based on available knowledge that can be objectively verified.

No priest, preacher, rabbi, mullah, guru or shaman can vouch for a verifiable god. They're strictly in the speculation game and they don't have to back up their claims with anything concrete.

So, the standards for religious claims and scientific claims are not remotely the same.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

I don't dispute your example. That's not an example of somebody putting blind faith in science. I'm sure there are many examples of people not putting blind faith in science.

How would one do that?

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Only if you define science very broadly to be the fields of study of knowledge. Which is circular.

Then what is your definition of science? Does it encompass assertions that are not knowledge-based.

Irreligious · 08-08-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

The natural sciences and natural science are not the same thing. Be careful.

OK.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

The scientific method depends on logic and may use mathematics as rational tools to move from hypothesis to observation to theory. But there is no natural science without empirical observations.

So logic is an intrinsic part of the scientific method, no? Without logic, you have no scientific method, right? And without mathematics, the scientific method would be severely hamstrung as a vehicle for discerning the operations of the natural world, correct?

If so, that sounds to me like the scientific method encompasses more than mere observation.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Here's another question for you. Can Math and Logic be sources of knowledge other than when they are used as part of the scientific method? I say yes because rational thought can produce knowledge (2 + 2 = 4 etc).

I think I see where you are going with this. Anyway, I'm not sure that there is any independent value in knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 if it's not otherwise going to be connected to some other bit of knowledge grounded in concrete reality.

As for logic, it's very dependent on premises. One can still follow an unchallenged false premise to a logical conclusion that would appear to be rational when, actually, it's not.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

Empiricism is not the only way to acquire knowledge.

I never said it was, nor did I ever suggest that the scientific method entailed mere observation and nothing more.

Quote:

thomastwo wrote

See above.

I read it, but it still doesn't answer my question. Doesn't the scientific method involve more than mere observation?

thomastwo · 08-08-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Davin wrote

Did you not try to say that by my pointing out your error that it was "a kind of circular argument"? I linked to you saying that.

Did you not also tell Irreligious that me pointing out that you were wrong meant that I did not understand my own argument as the link to you saying that shows?

There is a difference between a misquote (in that I'm not quoting you accurately), and paraphrasing (which is restating something in another way).

So it's not a misquote, but a paraphrasing. Keep up the lying

It simply was a misquote. No amount of misdirection on your part can change that. You attributed words to me (you wrote thomastwo:) that I did not use. Misquote.

Irreligious · 08-08-2012, 03:00 PM

Seriously, T2, Davin was paraphrasing what you said. Except for the part where Davin had you admitting you were wrong (and we all know you would never actually admit to such a thing), there is no substantive difference between what you said and what David said you said.

thomastwo · 08-08-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

Seriously, T2, Davin was paraphrasing what you said. Except for the part where Davin had you admitting you were wrong (and we all know you would never actually admit to such a thing), there is no substantive difference between what you said and what David said you said.

So he paraphrased me correctly apart from the bit where he didn't?

It's a bullshit misquote. It's presented as what I said. And it isn't what I said

thomastwo · 08-08-2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

So logic is an intrinsic part of the scientific method, no? Without logic, you have no scientific method, right? And without mathematics, the scientific method would be severely hamstrung as a vehicle for discerning the operations of the natural world, correct?

If so, that sounds to me like the scientific method encompasses more than mere observation.

Right, but think about it the other way. Without the empirical observation it isn't the naturalistic scientific method.

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

I think I see where you are going with this. Anyway, I'm not sure that there is any independent value in knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 if it's not otherwise going to be connected to some other bit of knowledge grounded in concrete reality.

As for logic, it's very dependent on premises. One can still follow an unchallenged false premise to a logical conclusion that would appear to be rational when, actually, it's not.

I'm not clear. Do you think you can you get knowledge from math and logic absent empirical observation? I think this is a yes or no question.

You seem to be hedging on this issue. Why?

Quote:

Irreligious wrote

I never said it was, nor did I ever suggest that the scientific method entailed mere observation and nothing more.

So, if empiricism is not the only way to acquire knowledge. What are the other ways?