261 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

Says the person who fails to accept the other point of view, which, I might add, makes a damned sight bit more sense than yours.

I do accept the other point of view. I subscribe to the other point of view. Science should be limited to the rules of the scientific method, as they yield the best results.

That is my belief. I, unlike you, am willing to acknowledge that it is equally valid to disagree.

Words, right, are supposed to have definitions. Science has one. "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Notably, this is the "official" definition, given by science to explain itself.

Most basically, science is "the state of knowing; knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding".

Using your loosest definition logic, the answer would be yes.

Again, straw man. That you are misusing the point does not invalidate it.

How is it a strawman? It is applying your logic to others things to disprove your logic.

How a car ought to work is a belief.
How a plane ought to work is a belief.
How science ought to work is a belief.

So, according to your logic, right... using an oven is a belief.

Using my logic, the preference of certain methods of baking a cake is a belief [that those methods are best].

I don't twist your words. Yet you seem to love twisting mine.

I seem to love pointing out that your views of the world are not absolute, if that's what you mean.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 10:44 AM.

[Oberon Storm]

Words, right, are supposed to have definitions. Science has one. "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Notably, this is the "official" definition, given by science to explain itself.

Most basically, science is "the state of knowing; knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding".

Can you give a source that gives that "basic" definiton of science?

How is it a strawman? It is applying your logic to others things to disprove your logic.

How a car ought to work is a belief.
How a plane ought to work is a belief.
How science ought to work is a belief.

It doesn't matter how a car ought to work. How it does work is not belief. It is fact.

[LionHarted]

Can you give a source that gives that "basic" definiton of science?

Science itself comes from a word meaning "knowledge."
Science as an organization and an institutionalized process is the most COMMON use of the word, but that's neither here nor there.

It doesn't matter how a car ought to work. How it does work is not belief. It is fact.

Science (the institution) DOES work a certain way. That is indisputable fact.
Science (study through observation/experience) DOES NOT necessarily work that certain way. Observation and experience can come in several forms, including institutionalized science.

Whether it should or should not work either way is a matter of belief. That is what I have been arguing. That is what religion argues about itself; that is what science argues about itself.

Anything organized religion does not accept is "not religion"; anything organized science does not accept is "not science".

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 10:55 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

Which, of course, is why this argument is hilarious.

No, it's because you haven't answer a single one of his questions, blatantly defy logic, and purposely act ignorant to stall your defeat. Your arguments have contradicted themselves numerous times, and not only in this thread. You are a fool, and people know it. That?s what's funny.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 09 August 2007 - 10:53 AM.

[LionHarted]

Whatever.

There's no reason to continue this debate, since science is apparently exempt from its own rules.

Good day.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I do accept the other point of view. I subscribe to the other point of view. Science should be limited to the rules of the scientific method, as they yield the best results.

Now if you had admitted that, this argument wouldn't have gotten so heated up.

That is my belief. I, unlike you, am willing to acknowledge that it is equally valid to disagree.

You are so willing to tell people what they believe? Even though you're wrong? When did I ever say it was not valid to disagree? When I told you how science works, didn't it imply that I thoguht it was valid to disagree?

I'm arguing against you because you insist on using definitions of words that are far too broad to be true. Not everything is absolute, but words defined by man are. There's even a book out there that gives you the absolute definition. It's called a dictionary.

Notably, this is the "official" definition, given by science to explain itself.

No, it's a dictionary definition.

Most basically, science is "the state of knowing; knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding".

That's not the definition of science. Using that definition, learning by reading a history textbook can be science. That is clearly not true.

How is it a strawman? It is applying your logic to others things to disprove your logic.

How a car ought to work is a belief.
How a plane ought to work is a belief.
How science ought to work is a belief.

Still don't see the validity of your strawman accusation. This is not what you said before. I never got this impression from you. Your words never conveyed that meaning. You moved your goalposts. You keep moving your goalposts. You are dishonest, because not once did you ever state anything like that.

Using my logic, the preference of certain methods of baking a cake is a belief [that those methods are best].

Wrong. Using your logic, using an oven is a belief. That is the meaning I get from your words. When I read your posts, I never got the meaning that you stated in the above quote. Not once. Now if you really sincerely believe the above, then your wording is at fault.

I don't twist your words. Yet you seem to love twisting mine.

I seem to love pointing out that your views of the world are not absolute, if that's what you mean.

Now where did you get that damned fool idea from?

Whatever.

There's no reason to continue this debate, since science is apparently exempt from its own rules.

Good day.

And where'd you get that idea from? That's even more illogical than the rest of what you've been saying!

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 09 August 2007 - 11:01 AM.

[LionHarted]

Now if you had admitted that, this argument wouldn't have gotten so heated up.

I admitted it right off.

When did I ever say it was not valid to disagree? When I told you how science works, didn't it imply that I thoguht it was valid to disagree?

People can believe that science is not the best method, whether it is or not. That is what I have been saying.
Scientists believe that science is the best method, or so it would seem from the fact that they are scientists.

I'm arguing against you because you insist on using definitions of words that are far too broad to be true.

I'm not using them. I'm simply saying that other people might, because not everyone has to agree on them.

No, it's a dictionary definition.

The one given by science to describe itself. There are other definitions for science that do not refer to the organized study.

That's not the definition of science.

It's a dictionary definition.

This is not what you said before.

This is precisely what I have been saying, from the moment I brought up the point.

Page 4 of this thread: "And science takes its beliefs (about how people should observe the world)..." (i.e., science's beliefs about itself)

Wrong. Using your logic, using an oven is a belief.

The way an oven ought to be used is a belief. That is what I said; that is what I maintain.

Now where did you get that damned fool idea from?

Your views not being absolute? I would think that would be obvious.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 11:09 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Now if you had admitted that, this argument wouldn't have gotten so heated up.

I admitted it right off.

Well if you did, you didn't word it right, because I never read you say anything of the sort.

When did I ever say it was not valid to disagree? When I told you how science works, didn't it imply that I thoguht it was valid to disagree?

People can believe that science is not the best method, whether it is or not. That is what I have been saying.
Scientists believe that science is the best method, or so it would seem from the fact that they are scientists.

Ah, so you can't actually find an instance where I said or implied it wasn't valid to disagree?

I'm arguing against you because you insist on using definitions of words that are far too broad to be true.

I'm not using them. I'm simply saying that other people might, because not everyone has to agree on them.

So, you're being contrary for the sake of it?

No, it's a dictionary definition.

The one given by science to describe itself. There are other definitions for science that do not refer to the organized study.

Okay. Prove that science was the one that came up with that definition.

That's not the definition of science.

It's a dictionary definition.

Don't know what dictionary you've got, but it must be wrong. It's too broad. As I stated before, it could apply to anything where you learn more information.

This is not what you said before.

This is precisely what I have been saying, from the moment I brought up the point.

Page 4 of this thread: "And science takes its beliefs (about how people should observe the world)..." (i.e., science's beliefs about itself)

And I still maintain that your position is not correct, because it stretches the definition of belief too much.

The way an oven ought to be used is a belief. That is what I said; that is what I maintain.

You never said that until the post I last responded to.

Now where did you get that damned fool idea from?

Your views not being absolute? I would think that would be obvious.

Where did I state that my views were absolute? Where did I imply it?

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 09 August 2007 - 11:25 AM.

[LionHarted]

Ah, so you can't actually find an instance where I said or implied it wasn't valid to disagree?

The part where you said it was fact.

So, you're being contrary for the sake of it?

I'm being contrary because other people might be.

Okay. Prove that science was the one that came up with that definition.

That it appears practically verbatim in a number of scientific thesis?

Don't know what dictionary you've got, but it must be wrong. It's too broad. As I stated before, it could apply to anything where you learn more information.

It's the same dictionary you were using.

And I still maintain that your position is not correct, because it stretches the definition of belief too much.

It stretches your definition of belief too much.

You're still operating as though the views of others are somehow not at all valid.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 11:37 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Ah, so you can't actually find an instance where I said or implied it wasn't valid to disagree?

The part where you said it was fact.

And how exactly does that prove I said it wasn't valid to disagree?

Okay. Prove that science was the one that came up with that definition.

That it appears practically verbatim in a number of scientific thesis?

Oh really? And how does that prove that science came up with the definition to describe itself?

It's the same dictionary you were using.

No, I'd have noticed that definition if it was there.

It stretches your definition of belief too much.

No, it stretches the definition of belief too much, because then a lot of things become beliefs when they clearly aren't.

You're still operating as though the views of others are somehow not at all valid.

No, it's only your view that isn't valid, because you fail to prove it is so.

[LionHarted]

And how exactly does that prove I said it wasn't valid to disagree?

When you said that I was "not correct."

And later in the very post I'm quoting.

No, it stretches the definition of belief too much, because then a lot of things become beliefs when they clearly aren't.

Define "belief", in your own words, so I can see from which point of view you operate.

And I thought you'd acknowledged that abstracts like this have more than one valid definition?

No, it's only your view that isn't valid, because you fail to prove it is so.

I fail to prove that my definition for "belief" doesn't encompass scientists?
That's a laugh.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

[quote name='LionHarted' post='352877' date='Aug 9 2007, 05:47 PM'][quote name='Wolf_ODonnell' post='352876' date='Aug 9 2007, 11:43 AM']And how exactly does that prove I said it wasn't valid to disagree?[/quote]

When you said that I was "not correct."

And later in the very post I'm quoting.

[quote]Define "belief", in your own words, so I can see from which point of view you operate.[/quote]I've defined belief before, but if you must...

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another
2. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Scientists don't place trust in the scientific method. That is why they repeat experiments and do other experiments to prove that the intial results of their initial experiments aren't spurious. The way scientists conduct experiments indicates a lack of trust and confidence in the scientific method. The same goes for the second definition. The way they keep repeating themselves, it does not betray a belief that their methods are true. If you did, you wouldn't act as if it was completely fallible.

[quote]And I thought you'd acknowledged that abstracts like this have more than one valid definition?[/quote]

Explain this sentence.

[quote]I fail to prove that my definition for "belief" doesn't encompass scientists?
That's a laugh.[/quote]

You have failed. Your posts don't prove anything of the sort.

[LionHarted]

Scientists don't place trust in the scientific method. That is why they repeat experiments and do other experiments to prove that the intial results of their initial experiments aren't spurious.

They repeat experiments and do other experiments... using the same method.
From what I can tell, I would describe what you're describing as them not trusting two things:

1) their results;
2) their conclusions
(possibly/hopefully their process/capacity for error, but I hope that was implied)

The method is always used. If it is the method that is flawed, repeating the method or applying it elsewhere won't (or shouldn't, in theory) yield answers that are any less "spurious". It is "faith" (or at least something I would classify as "faith") to "trust" (the same) that the method will eventually either reveal error, or produce "fact" (for lack of a better word).

Similarly, however, really religious people (that is, not people who simply practice because they've been taught, but people who actually have faith utterly through their own choosing) question their beliefs and their methods [of conduct and theological/philosophical observation] all the time. I do myself, at least, and most other heavy Christian thinkers attest to this as well. That is why we constantly stray from the paths we attest to being righteous and why many Christians break away from their original denominations to form new ones. The difference between religion and science, in this aspect, is that religion deals with non-empirical ideas, and thus "fact" cannot be reached through human ends.

At the end of the day, though, what makes Christians Christians is that they always arrive at conclusions or achieve results more or less in keeping with Christian ideas, no matter how many times they test their beliefs. They arrive at these conclusions rationally, not necessarily empirically, but then again, that is what separates science from religion/philosophy.

And there are, of course, people who'll believe anything they're told, either in a science book or the Bible, and sometimes both, without question.

These are differing levels of what I consider "faith": "rational faith" (faith in ideas through experience, observation, consistency, what have you) and "blind faith" (faith of the masses).

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow not because someone told me to (blind faith), but because it always has done so (faith in experience). I have faith that the scientific method yields overall factual results because the scientific method tends to do so, thanks to hundreds of years of refinement and experience with experimentation (faith in experience).

But, for all I know, the sun might never rise again, and all that I, and science, have considered fact could all be wrong.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 12:16 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Scientists don't place trust in the scientific method. That is why they repeat experiments and do other experiments to prove that the intial results of their initial experiments aren't spurious.

They repeat experiments and do other experiments... using the same method.

Who says? You?

From what I can tell, I would describe what you're describing as them not trusting two things:

1) their results;
2) their conclusions
(possibly their process/capacity for error)

The method is always used. If it is the method that is flawed, repeating the method or applying it elsewhere won't (or shouldn't, in theory) yield answers that are any less "spurious".

The method is also taken into account, by doing something different. A different experiment, requires a different method.

I have to cut it off there, because what you state below is exactly what I believe.

[LionHarted]

Who says? You?

Are they going to use another method that is not the scientific method?

The method is also taken into account, by doing something different. A different experiment, requires a different method.

I'm talking about the scientific method, mind you. Sorry if that was not clear.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 12:28 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Are they going to use another method that is not the scientific method?

And what is that scientific method, may I ask, because I have a feeling we're not using the same vocabulary?

[LionHarted]

And what is that scientific method, may I ask, because I have a feeling we're not using the same vocabulary?

Whatever that thing is that scientists always do when they do experiments.

[foresees a massive in-joke in this and all topics to come]

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Whatever that thing is that scientists always do when they do experiments.

You mean...

1. Come up with a hypothesis.
2. Come up with a null hypothesis.
3. Design an experiment to prove that the null hypothesis is true.
4. Perform the experiment.
5. If applicable, use statistics to see whether results prove or disprove null hypothesis.
6. Reject null hypothesis and accept hypothesis if applicable.
7. Repeat.
8. Come up with hypothesis to explain why you got the results.
9. Come up with null hypothesis.
10. etc. etc.

Now, I don't know about you, but the only flaw I see would apepar in Steps 3 and 5, and even with step 5 the flaw would only be if you accidentally forgot to carry a one or something like that. So it's basically step 3. Now, only the logic in step 3 would be wrong. That is why scientists will try to come up with a new experiment, to prove that the logic in step 3 isn't false. Repeating the experiment proves the result isn't spurious. Doing another experiment, helps to prove that the logic used in the experiment isn't false.

So... how exactly are they believing in their own logic, again?

[LionHarted]

Remember, all that I claimed was that they believe the scientific method produces logical conclusions.
Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant to the belief.

Religious people believe that positive prayer produces positive results.
Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant to the belief.

And I'm done here. DONE.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 04:14 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Remember, all that I claimed was that they believe the scientific method produces logical conclusions.
Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant to the belief.

Religious people believe that positive prayer produces positive results.
Whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant to the belief.

And I'm done here. DONE.

Good. You're just repeating the same WRONG information.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I find it funny that although LionHarted insists that I'm the one who believes that my absolute views are absolute and apply to everything, LionHarted is the one that is arguing that all scientists have a belief in the scientific method. Whereas, though I believe the opposite, all my logic has managed to do is show that not every scientist has this belief.

[SOAP]

And I love Athena. Too bad she's totally underated as far as gods go. Oh well. I don't need golden mansion or streets paved in gold. I just need her.

I'm pretty sure you're mocking me. But oh well if you are or not.

I kinda was but I was also trying to prove a point. But oh well if you didn't see it.

And crap I've lost my spot in this debate. Guess I'll catch y'all next to time.

Edited by SOAP, 10 August 2007 - 09:29 PM.