10 commandments for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers

[Davin]

thomastwo wrote

Yes. But Logic and Math are not science.

Oh really?
Mathematics

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

the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

[Irreligious]

Thanks, Davin. I stand corrected.

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

[clambake]

Irreligious wrote

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.

[Davin]

clambake wrote

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.

[Smellyoldgit]

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

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.

Irreligious wrote

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.

Irreligious wrote

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]

Davin wrote

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]

Irreligious wrote

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.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

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.

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.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

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.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

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?"

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.

[psychodiva]

[Davin]

thomastwo wrote

[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.

thomastwo wrote

[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.

[thomastwo]

Davin wrote

blah, blah, blah

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

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

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.

Irreligious wrote

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".

Irreligious wrote

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.

Irreligious wrote

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.