Philo Sofee Vs. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson: Science as Dogma

[_Philo Sofee]

Kerr, I used your link and there's no article at that location. What happened?

I dunno. I just tried, and sure enough, the page is gone. It wasn't gone yesterday.

[_Philo Sofee]

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.

Oh absolutely. It is very nice when we can get so much information out of so many on such fascinating subjects.

[_DoubtingThomas]

happy

Science is the only thing that can stop Mormonism and religion in general. Historical "facts" won't do jack s***. If you want religion to end science is your only hope.

[_DoubtingThomas]

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.

Yes that is how many people hear it, we humans tend to want a final word on everything. It is a good thing that science always changes, but there are scientific theories that are highly unlikely to be overturned by new evidence.

[_subgenius]

... but there are scientific theories that are highly unlikely to be overturned by new evidence.

For example?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... but there are scientific theories that are highly unlikely to be overturned by new evidence.

For example?

Gravity.

- Doc

[_MrStakhanovite]

Religious apologists of many stripes [I'm eyeing you Dr. Peterson] continue proclaiming that science is dogmatic and as such is not the last word on truth and reality. Being dogmatic is a rather negative assessment on the assumptions of religious apologists, and is a liability that weakens science. But, science is not dogmatic and in fact, it changes all the time. However, apologists assume and assert it never has actual and real knowledge to begin with so we are better off just listening and believing what religion says about reality. Is this how science works though? I don’t think so, and have some evidence that shows otherwise. The mis-characterization of science does not make religion credible.

It might be helpful for your thesis if you fleshed out some kind of bare bones epistemology. An apologist might say that what counts as "knowledge" are beliefs that we can't be wrong about and that since "science" is predicated on contingent facts that might be false it cannot, in principle, produce knowledge.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I also suggest that it would be a benefit to readers if you can explain how science and religion come into conflict. Another route an apologist could take is pointing out that the science you speak of is a conjunction of methods and religion proper is not a method itself and so one ought not compare the two. One can be a fierce critic of science while at the same time being non-religious, that could be seen as suggesting that there isn't a necessary conflict between religion and science.

[_Res Ipsa]

I also suggest that it would be a benefit to readers if you can explain how science and religion come into conflict. Another route an apologist could take is pointing out that the science you speak of is a conjunction of methods and religion proper is not a method itself and so one ought not compare the two. One can be a fierce critic of science while at the same time being non-religious, that could be seen as suggesting that there isn't a necessary conflict between religion and science.

That last bit doesn’t sound right. How would the fact that there are secular critics of science imply that there isn’t a conflict between religion and science? Wouldn’t you need religious non-critics of science or scientific non-critics if religion to imply that?

[_Kevin Graham]

... but there are scientific theories that are highly unlikely to be overturned by new evidence.

For example?

Heliocentric theory, cell theory, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of relativity, etc.