How many posters on MD were once apologists?

[_Chap]

If funding is on the line, scientists are pretty hesitant to abandon their errors. Plus, the statement shows a remarkable ignorance about philosophy of science and how scientists actually operate. I mean as one small example, take Kuhn. A large part of his argument hinges on the argument that scientists are NOT likely to abandon their errors.

I suggest to you that the important thing is not whether an individual scientist 'abandons his errors'. Science is not just something that happens in a scientist's head.

The point is rather that science is a large, diffuse and evolving social institution, that has demonstrated repeatedly that it does succeed in abandoning things shown not to work, and embracing those that do. It thrives on new questions, and rewards those who ask fruitful ones. Those who can succeed in persuading the majority of scientists to abandon an old idea and adopt a new one are richly rewarded in terms of reputation.

Such an institution is very different indeed from an institution such as a religion, most of whose effort is often spent in discouraging the asking of awkward questions and defending the old answers against all attacks from wherever they come.

[_Aristotle Smith]

If funding is on the line, scientists are pretty hesitant to abandon their errors. Plus, the statement shows a remarkable ignorance about philosophy of science and how scientists actually operate. I mean as one small example, take Kuhn. A large part of his argument hinges on the argument that scientists are NOT likely to abandon their errors.

Have you read Kuhn?

I suggest to you that the important thing is not whether an individual scientist 'abandons his errors'. Science is not just something that happens in a scientist's head.

Uh, I said scientists, as in as a group they tend to cling to errors.

The point is rather that science is a large, diffuse and evolving social institution, that has demonstrated repeatedly that it does succeed in abandoning things shown not to work, and embracing those that do. It thrives on new questions, and rewards those who ask fruitful ones. Those who can succeed in persuading the majority of scientists to abandon an old idea and adopt a new one are richly rewarded in terms of reputation.

Seriously, read some philosophy of science.

Such an institution is very different indeed from an institution such as a religion, most of whose effort is often spent in discouraging the asking of awkward questions and defending the old answers against all attacks from wherever they come.

First of all, neither "science" nor "religion" are institutions. They are concepts. And, what you have done is define "science" to be in opposition to "religion" and you have made sure that the concept "science" compares favorably to "religion." I wholly reject your conceptualization of religion, mainly because outside of fundamentalist groups (which unfortunately all too often includes Mormons), religion doesn't work that way.

Look, there are bad apples on both sides. There are also good apples on both sides. But let's stop the silly caricatures where everyone on one side is white knights and the other side is dark hearted villains.

[_Milesius]

And let's not even mention all the epistles of Paul that weren't written by Paul,

Eight were certainly written by him, which is the majority.

or Deutero Isaiah that wasn't written by Isaiah.

That, of course, is disputed.

[_Milesius]

Scientists inevitably abandon errors once they have been shown to be errors. The competition in the marketplace of scientific research guarantees that sooner or later, erroneous hypotheses WILL be rooted out by someone eventually. Scientists won't continue to hold on to them once disproven

LOL

[_Milesius]

1. The modal ontological arguments of Charles Hartshorne and Kurt Gödel.

2. The argument from contingency.

3. This argument I borrowed from David Bartholomew.

Read those (or have them read to you.)

Another person who doesn't understand what the word "evidence" means.

To the contrary, as a statistician, I know well what evidence means. Formal logical arguments and probabilistic/statistical arguments that are valid and sound most certainly are evidence.

Apart from Mormonism, you have shown yourself to be a dilettante on every subject on which you've chosen to opine.

[_Buffalo]

Yes, but that would be a tiny minority.

Compared to the vast swaths of the population that are trained scientists, amirite?

Because they're no more valid than the Comma Johanneum

Walk me through this, Because Paul did not author 1st and 2nd Timothy, this invalidates the epistle’s contents how?

No, I'm saying a tiny minority of believers are educated about their religious texts.

John didn't write the Comma Johanneum. Do you think the contents are valid? What's the difference between that and 1 Tim?

[_Buffalo]

Uh, I said scientists, as in as a group they tend to cling to errors.

Right, which is why they still cling to Newtonian physics. Those pesky scientists, they just can't let go of their errors!

[_Buffalo]

or Deutero Isaiah that wasn't written by Isaiah.

That, of course, is disputed.

Not by any serious scholar.

[_Buffalo]

Scientists inevitably abandon errors once they have been shown to be errors. The competition in the marketplace of scientific research guarantees that sooner or later, erroneous hypotheses WILL be rooted out by someone eventually. Scientists won't continue to hold on to them once disproven

LOL

What a rebuttal.

[_keithb]

Another person who doesn't understand what the word "evidence" means.

Indeed, and this is the rub for me when it comes to religion. The line of thinking the Milesius uses is very similar to the one used by Alister Mcgrath and friends: since the existence of God can't be debunked 100%, therefore Christianity is the right religion, including the virgin birth, people coming back from the dead, etc. To me, this leap of logic just doesn't make sense. How does one go from the faintest possibility of something existing to a sure knowledge of its existence with no evidence linking the two possibilities?