Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
Good job Philo Sofee! Hopefully we see the day that you create videos with great stuff.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6660
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
Aristotle Smith wrote:Gadianton wrote:Did he say that science itself is dogma or that scientism is dogma, and that some people, including skeptics, atheists, and many scientists, are scientismists? If he says science is Dogma, please provide the quote.
I read the post in vain trying to find something where he said that, I couldn't find it. The quote Philo put was vintage Dan snark, but it's still true.
The quote implies science used to be dogmatic, but now it is acknowledged finally (because of evidence? He didn't say why) it is being revised and changed. The entire premise of Mormon apologetics is that science is dogmatic in their knowledge and that is why it refutes religion. It's the reason Mormons are so anti-science, or at least many of the apologists. How can they not be since it refutes every scripture Mormonism has that is unique to itself? Anything and anytime they can hint that science changes and is therefore unreliable, they say means it is false compared to the revelations of God they receive, which are true and certifiably so. That is what I am contending against, their idea that science answers are dogmatically adhered to, but yet science changes, and therefore it never had the correct answers in the first place so one ought to believe Mormonism.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:38 pm
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
Philo Sofee wrote:The quote implies science used to be dogmatic, but now it is acknowledged finally (because of evidence? He didn't say why) it is being revised and changed.
No, it was classic Dan snark, probably meant to target something stupid. Who cares?
Philo Sofee wrote:The entire premise of Mormon apologetics is that science is dogmatic in their knowledge and that is why it refutes religion.
WTF? That sentence either 1) makes no sense or 2) says the exact opposition of what you meant. In either case, I would implore you to stop giving 2 craps about what Mopologists say about science. Literally nobody outside of their little circle jerk really cares what they think about science. And for the most part, Mormons tend not to be anti-science. They tend to not believe results of science when it conflicts with their pre-established beliefs, but that's not anti-science, that's worldview preservation.
Worldview preservation isn't necessarily anti-anything, it can be as simple as withholding judgement or not caring. For example, if a believer hears that genetics disproves the Book of Mormon, it's perfectly reasonable to NOT rush out and get the necessary knowledge to adjudicate the evidence. Why reasonable? Because people have limited time and resources to spend on any one subject.
I left the LDS church largely over historical and textual issues. I really couldn't explain to you the details of why genetics disproves the Book of Mormon. I assume the genetics issues are valid evidence against the Book of Mormon, because I believe the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century work based on other lines of evidence. I just don't care about the science issues here, does that make me anti-science? Maybe, but I just don't care.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
Aristotle Smith wrote:I left the LDS church largely over historical and textual issues. I really couldn't explain to you the details of why genetics disproves the Book of Mormon. I assume the genetics issues are valid evidence against the Book of Mormon, because I believe the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century work based on other lines of evidence. I just don't care about the science issues here, does that make me anti-science? Maybe, but I just don't care.
but historical and textual evidence can be controversial and ambiguous. LDS history did very little to impact my former faith in the LDS church.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
Philo Sofee wrote:
But does this mean the information they present is wrong or false? Writing for the public they cannot all the sudden start writing what is incorrect can they? I honestly don't see why writing as popularizers means they are not worth reading or citing. Sorry to be so obtuse.
I know. Popular books are for the us, the papers are for the researchers.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
Kerr, I used your link and there's no article at that location. What happened?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
The meaning of the quote when turning up the subtext to an audible level:
Science just changed its mind again about something! I guess the final word on any scientific topic hasn't been written yet, which means that the Limited Geography Theory might be vindicated one day.
Now why does that matter when carpentry and poetry have nothing to do with science? Who knows, consistency doesn't seem to matter, but that's what the quote means.
Science just changed its mind again about something! I guess the final word on any scientific topic hasn't been written yet, which means that the Limited Geography Theory might be vindicated one day.
Now why does that matter when carpentry and poetry have nothing to do with science? Who knows, consistency doesn't seem to matter, but that's what the quote means.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11104
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
For what it's worth, Philo, the Carrier thread would never have happened without your enthusiasm and willingness to jump into deep waters then strike out for the opposing shore.
It takes all kinds. And people with a real zest for life and contagious curiosity are pretty rare. So, thanks for bringing some of that zest to the board.
It takes all kinds. And people with a real zest for life and contagious curiosity are pretty rare. So, thanks for bringing some of that zest to the board.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
Aristotle Smith wrote: I just don't care about the science issues here, does that make me anti-science? Maybe, but I just don't care.
sad
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:38 pm
Re: Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma
DoubtingThomas wrote:Aristotle Smith wrote: I just don't care about the science issues here, does that make me anti-science? Maybe, but I just don't care.
sad
happy