08-06-2012, 12:51 PM
|
#121
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,902
|
T2 is using a kind of hackneyed approach to defending religious faith, by claiming that the "faith" we have in science is the exactly the same kind of faith the religious have in their god(s). Boring, tired old argument. Sigh.
"If God inspired the Bible, why is it such a piece of shit?" (Kaziglu Bey)
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 02:24 PM
|
#122
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
Quote:
Michael wrote
Faith, or a reasonable expectation based on past results? Faith in this case being belief in something without reason. However, given that faith is pretty much a "nothing" word, perhaps you have a different definition, in which case by all means lay it out.
If no-one had ever seen gravity in action before, then there's room to argue it would be faith for a scientist to expect someone to fall out of a plane at 9.8 m/s/s.
However, given that has been an observable fact that hasn't changed ever at all (as far as I'm aware. Of course, I'm not omnipotent) for as long as things have been falling, there seems little reason to think that it will suddenly stop doing that. That would seem less faith, and more reasonable expectation.
|
It's both a reasonable expectation and a statement of faith. Projecting a scientific theory forwards in time and assuming that the laws of nature will stay the same is not objectively verifiable.
Quote:
Michael wrote
I've even met a few people that (not in those exact words) say that. At least they do with their actions (ie lack of trying to educate themselves on these sorts of matters).
However, this seems to be very much more a rare exception, rather than a rule.
Anyway, I haven't really kept up with this line of your argument: Are you trying to say merely that it's possible to do this (which I suppose it would be hard to disagree), or that most people do this (in which case you're kookoo-bananas)?
|
I'm merely saying it's possible to do this. However, your assumption that it would be hard to disagree with this blindingly obvious point is apparently easy to disagree with if you are Davin.
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 02:27 PM
|
#123
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
Hmm. I firmly believe that gravity has a grip on me, and that if I were to jump out of a 100-story window, there is an exceedingly good possibility I would then fall to my death. Mind you, I haven't personally tested my little scientific "theory."
Do you think it unreasonable for me to accept it on blind faith?
|
No. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 02:28 PM
|
#124
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
Quote:
lostsheep wrote
T2 is using a kind of hackneyed approach to defending religious faith, by claiming that the "faith" we have in science is the exactly the same kind of faith the religious have in their god(s). Boring, tired old argument. Sigh.
|
Where did I make that claim?
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 02:44 PM
|
#125
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
|
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
I'm merely saying it's possible to do this. However, your assumption that it would be hard to disagree with this blindingly obvious point is apparently easy to disagree with if you are Davin.
|
Oh snap! Good one, herpa derpa! Look at you go!
Now if only T2 would see the glaringly obvious point that redefining words that a person uses doesn't make their statement wrong, it just makes you look stupid.
Am I doing this passive aggressive thing right or am I being too direct towards T2?
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 04:07 PM
|
#126
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
Quote:
Davin wrote
Oh snap! Good one, herpa derpa! Look at you go!
<snip image>
Now if only T2 would see the glaringly obvious point that redefining words that a person uses doesn't make their statement wrong, it just makes you look stupid.
Am I doing this passive aggressive thing right or am I being too direct towards T2?
|
Now you're just being silly. I already know you don't understand my point.
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 04:34 PM
|
#127
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
|
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
Now you're just being silly. I already know you don't understand my point.
|
I understand your point. It's a stupid point.
But if you want to play by your logic of renaming things to make your point, then you're wrong because one cannot have blind faith (puppies) in science (a teacup), because the faith (puppies) are too big.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 04:36 PM
|
#128
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
I haven't renamed or redefined one single thing in making my point. That's one of the things you don't understand.
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 08:59 PM
|
#129
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
|
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
I haven't renamed or redefined one single thing in making my point. That's one of the things you don't understand.
|
herpa derpa!
The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 10:29 PM
|
#130
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
Bit disappointed I got a re-heated copy of somebody else's insult from you ghouly honey. Standards slipping a bit?
|
|
|
08-06-2012, 11:45 PM
|
#131
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,457
|
Quote:
Davin wrote
Am I doing this passive aggressive thing right or am I being too direct towards T2?
|
I liked the image, though your passive aggressive seems more aggressive than passive.
I often find the best way to be passive-aggressive to people is to put them down in the guise of trying to be helpful.
Something along the lines of "Your argument has clear flaws X, Y, Z. But that's okay, you'll get there. We'll get you some grade 5/6 textbooks and you can re-learn this stuff. Maybe I can get my 12-year-old nephew in to teach you some of this. He might start to teach you some ideas a bit more advanced than what you're used to, but if that happens we'll just reel him in a bit."
See, because he's not used to thinking at the level higher than a 12 year old! Classic!
|
|
|
08-07-2012, 07:24 AM
|
#132
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
You've got it Michael. That's two posts in a row where you've successfully managed to correct Davin's mistakes.
|
|
|
08-07-2012, 07:37 AM
|
#133
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
|
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
I haven't renamed or redefined one single thing in making my point. That's one of the things you don't understand.
|
This is either a lie, or you have a poor memory, in case it's the latter I'll post the things where you're redefining the word science to mean something other than science:
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
Depends what you mean by blind faith. If you mean an unreasoning acceptance of a fact then it probably is possible to have blind faith in science.
|
You'll notice (by knowing what science is), that this is not science, but you use this thing that is not science in a failed attempt to correct my statement.
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
Take as an example the person who says that they believe in science but could not explain the scientific method. That would be a kind of blind faith in science.
|
If a person says they believe in science but can't explain science, then they don't know what science is and therefore don't believe in it but call something else science.
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
So, somebody could clearly believe in the scientific method without having evidence. For example "I believe in the scientific method because my teacher told me it was correct". Blind Faith.
|
Evidence is part of the scientific method, it's not science without it. Believing that a thing called "the scientific method" exists, is different from knowing what it is and accepting it the most useful process for determining reality.
So, you did try to redefine what science was to fit your "corrections". Are you lying or just stupid? Personally I think you being stupid it better than you being dishonest.
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
You've got it Michael. That's two posts in a row where you've successfully managed to correct Davin's mistakes.
|
Aw, that's so cute! Do it again!
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
|
|
|
08-07-2012, 08:03 AM
|
#134
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
You need to work on your reading comprehension Davin. Try again.
|
|
|
08-07-2012, 08:15 AM
|
#135
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
|
I do not, I've demonstrated my ability to read an comprehend what you said as you've said it (unless you want to point out where I haven't). Good work on your failure do defend your lying, not understanding what you did and/or your failure to remember the things you did.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 PM.
|