Morley wrote:Simon, your examples are not science.
But my point is: Science is always changing. What is true today will not be true tomorrow.
It is true today that heat is average molecular kinetic energy. When do you think that will stop being true?
It is true today that germs cause infectious disease. I wonder when that will stop being true.
It is true today that DNA encodes instructions for protein synthesis. Not true in a few years?
Your little science-is-changing trope is just as silly coming from you as it was from my mother back when I was 12. It is tantamount to thinking that since we may learn new things and find we were wrong about a few things, we may as well believe in whatever fairytale our hearts desire regardless of evidence.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
what will the apologists say then? well, if it always comes back to the "god can do as he pleases" argument, i can easily foresee a time when any scientific minded person will simply stop bothering with apologists. not unlike like how dawkins approaches creationists. which isn't to say apologists will suddenly be out of a job... more evidence "against" god (in what ever specific sense) will certainly demand more apologetic explanations on how the evidence doesn't really matter. and the apologetic circle of life continues.... (play me out, elton john)
It is true today that heat is average molecular kinetic energy. When do you think that will stop being true?
It is true today that germs cause infectious disease. I wonder when that will stop being true.
It is true today that DNA encodes instructions for protein synthesis. Not true in a few years?
Your little science-is-changing trope is just as silly coming from you as it was from my mother back when I was 12. It is tantamount to thinking that since we may learn new things and find we were wrong about a few things, we may as well believe in whatever fairytale our hearts desire regardless of evidence.
Keep in mind that Tarski is an unabashed believer in AGW, a religion based in faith and emotional commitment, so his criticisms here, while intellectually problematic in their own right, smack of hypocrisy.
Nothing in science is ever a fully closed case, and all scientific theories are tentative forever. That is the nature - and limitations - of the scientific enterprise and its perceptual methodology.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Buffalo wrote: Wherever science has investigated the supernatural, the supernatural loses. Every time. This has happened over, and over, and over again. I know you apologists love to bank on immeasurably small probabilities, but it's not a winning strategy.
Yeah. Well, horsefeathers. Let science come and analyze The Apocalrock. Let them draw out the line and the plummet. Make an anthropological case. It is art from before the foundation of the world. A prophesy. An artifact. A relic of intelligent design. It shall not be pooh poohed for ever.
i can easily foresee a time when any scientific minded person will simply stop bothering with apologists. not unlike like how dawkins approaches creationists.
Dawkins is a dolt outside his tiny academic niche of specialized knowledge, as the truly intellectually abysmal The God Delusion makes exceptionally clear.
Dawkin's dabbled with his own god complex too long, at it took possession of him (as it had with Sagan). This kind of positivist human self worship is a mind killer. It destroys both the imagination and the ability to truly think critically.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Keep in mind that Tarski is an unabashed believer in AGW, a religion based in faith and emotional commitment, so his criticisms here, while intellectually problematic in their own right, smack of hypocrisy.
Nothing in science is ever a fully closed case, and all scientific theories are tentative forever. That is the nature - and limitations - of the scientific enterprise and its perceptual methodology.
How are Tarski's criticisms "intellectually problematic in their own right"? Please elaborate.
Morley wrote:Simon, your examples are not science.
Many examples could be shown here, and not the least of them would be eugenics, beloved by trendy leftists who were anybody of note through the "progressive" era of the 1920s and 30s.
Oncology has been through several distinct phases of theorizing regarding the origin of cancer, from a germ theory (1950s) to the idea that much of it was environmental in nature, to the present thinking, in which genetic factors predominate.
For those for whom science is a religion (which is then no longer science at all, but scientism), none of this is going to put a single dent in their...faith.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Morley wrote:Simon, your examples are not science.
Many examples could be shown here, and not the least of them would be eugenics, beloved by trendy leftists who were anybody of note through the "progressive" era of the 1920s and 30s.
Oncology has been through several distinct phases of theorizing regarding the origin of cancer, from a germ theory (1950s) to the idea that much of it was environmental in nature, to the present thinking, in which genetic factors predominant.
For those for whom science is a religion (which is then no longer science at all, but scientism), none of this is going to put a single dent in their...faith.
I wasn't aware that Simon's examples involved eugenics or oncology.