Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-07-2012, 05:45 PM   #151
Davin
Obsessed Member
 
Davin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
Yes. But Logic and Math are not science.
Oh really?
Mathematics
Quote:
a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry, and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation
Yeah really:
Logic
Quote:
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
Davin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 06:31 PM   #152
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Thanks, Davin. I stand corrected.

See, T2? I just got called on an assertion by one of my atheist buddies.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 09:14 PM   #153
clambake
shred
 
clambake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Allentown Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Thanks, Davin. I stand corrected.

See, T2? I just got called on an assertion by one of my atheist buddies.
Fucking. A. I missed you Irr!

I was going to post about how wrong T2 was, but never-fucking-mind.

"Ignorance is not bliss; it is terrifying like walking blindfolded down a dark hallway full of set bear traps." ~ Sternwallow

Death will be like 1964 all over again.
clambake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 10:56 PM   #154
Davin
Obsessed Member
 
Davin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
clambake wrote View Post
I was going to post about how wrong T2 was, but never-fucking-mind.
Yeah, you have to get to them before Irreligious does. But I still like reading it.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
Davin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 12:25 AM   #155
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,589

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:04 AM   #156
thomastwo
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Your claim that people place blind faith in science and/or the scientific method is nonsense, T2. The scientific method deals specifically with that which is observeable and/or demonstrable. It's not a blind or faith-based endeavor. Period.
You are either unwilling or unable to read and comprehend. I said that somebody could have blind faith in science. Not that everybody places blind faith in science.

Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Nor does it presume to provide anyone with "the truth," as there is always more to know and discover. All the egregious insults you can lob at me are not going to change that.
No disagreement here.

Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Furthermore, logic and math are often intrinsic aspects of employing the scientific method, and not some separate revelation of reality. Science could no more exist without math and logic than a cough could exist without lungs.
But specifically you said that science was the only source of knowledge. I've given you two other examples.

Straight forwards question for you. Are logic and mathematics sources of knowledge? Yes or no.
thomastwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:14 AM   #157
thomastwo
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Davin wrote View Post
Oh really?
Mathematics


Yeah really:
Logic
[/color]
This is a kind of circular argument. If you are defining science as "a field of knowledge"then any field of knowledge is science by definition. But that doesn't really get us very far because it is saying precisely nothing to say a field of knowledge is the only source of knowledge.

If you mean by science. empirical natural science and specifically the scientific method, then math and logic would be excluded.

I was assuming that those of you who claimed that science was the only source of knowledge were referring to natural science. But perhaps I was wrong and in fact you were meaning to create a circular argument? Please clarify.
thomastwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 10:17 AM   #158
thomastwo
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Thanks, Davin. I stand corrected.

See, T2? I just got called on an assertion by one of my atheist buddies.
Are you sure you stand corrected? Let me know if you mean "a field of knowledge" when you say science or if you mean natural science.

And frankly you weren't called on an assertion. What happened is that Davin used the power of google to find any possible argument and posted the result without letting it first pass through the brain.
thomastwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 11:22 AM   #159
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
You are either unwilling or unable to read and comprehend. I said that somebody could have blind faith in science. Not that everybody places blind faith in science.
And I said it's not a thing you have blind faith in if you know what the hell it is. If you don't know what the scientific method is, then it's possible for you have faith in the folks who purport to know.

Science is not the least bit like religion, where the claims are generally not even knowable. No one can even begin to chart an alleged hell on a map or provide any verification for its existence. You have to take the claim on blind faith. You have no other choice, if you're going to believe it.

Now, if a whacked out astronomer or astrophysicists tells you the moon is made of cheese, there is a method for verifying his or her claim. It doesn't require belief to ascertain the facts, just knowledge of the body evidence available that will tell you what the moon is actually made of. Someone who blindly accepts that the moon is made of cheese is not actually putting his or her trust in science or the scientific method. That's what I've been trying to explain to you all this time. If you want to apply the method to learn the facts, the method is a reliable means of doing that.


Quote:
thomastwo wrote
But specifically you said that science was the only source of knowledge. I've given you two other examples.

Straight forwards question for you. Are logic and mathematics sources of knowledge? Yes or no.
Logic and mathematics are branches of the sciences, apparently. Davin has already shown us that they are.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 11:24 AM   #160
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
This is a kind of circular argument. If you are defining science as "a field of knowledge"then any field of knowledge is science by definition.
This. Knowledge is not faith. That's the point. You don't need faith (blind or otherwise) when actual knowledge is available.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 11:26 AM   #161
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
Are you sure you stand corrected? Let me know if you mean "a field of knowledge" when you say science or if you mean natural science.
Yes, I'm sure that I stand corrected. And what's an "unnatural science?"

Quote:
thomastwo wrote
And frankly you weren't called on an assertion. What happened is that Davin used the power of google to find any possible argument and posted the result without letting it first pass through the brain.
No, he used to Google to verify that logic and mathematics are sciences.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 11:29 AM   #162
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613

'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 12:12 PM   #163
Davin
Obsessed Member
 
Davin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
[Bunch of useless bullshit demonstrating that thomastwo doesn't know what a circular argument is.]If you mean by science. empirical natural science and specifically the scientific method, then math and logic would be excluded.
If I mean to only include the sciences that use the the scientific method, then maths and logic do fall into that category. But it does show that my original statement is correct: You don't know what science is, and also claim that a person can have blind faith in science.

Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
[Some more inane bullshit.]Please clarify.
You first. You said that maths and logic are not science, when they are science. There is no circular argument in what I posted, you incorrectly stated that maths and logic are not science, I corrected your incorrect assertions by showing you that they are sciences. Nothing circular about it.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
Davin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 12:55 PM   #164
thomastwo
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Davin wrote View Post
blah, blah, blah
I don't think misquoting is a useful way to have a conversation.
thomastwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2012, 01:07 PM   #165
thomastwo
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
And I said it's not a thing you have blind faith in if you know what the hell it is. If you don't know what the scientific method is, then it's possible for you have faith in the folks who purport to know.
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.

Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Science is not the least bit like religion, where the claims are generally not even knowable. No one can even begin to chart an alleged hell on a map or provide any verification for its existence. You have to take the claim on blind faith. You have no other choice, if you're going to believe it.
Claims either have evidence or they don't. It's irrelevant if they are "scientific" or "religious".

Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Now, if a whacked out astronomer or astrophysicists tells you the moon is made of cheese, there is a method for verifying his or her claim. It doesn't require belief to ascertain the facts, just knowledge of the body evidence available that will tell you what the moon is actually made of. Someone who blindly accepts that the moon is made of cheese is not actually putting his or her trust in science or the scientific method. That's what I've been trying to explain to you all this time. If you want to apply the method to learn the facts, the method is a reliable means of doing that.
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.


Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Logic and mathematics are branches of the sciences, apparently. Davin has already shown us that they are.
Only if you define science very broadly to be the fields of study of knowledge. Which is circular.
thomastwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational