The coastline of England can’t be measured, therefore the Book of Mormon can’t be disproven

[drumdude]

I’m waiting for DCP to make this argument, owning the “dogmatic materialist atheist fanatics.” He seems to be collecting lists of the limitations of science for his soon to be published book. So that he can then use them to make belief in the literal Book of Mormon seem less ridiculous.

Here’s his recent blog on the limitations of math: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... nal-1.html

Dan’s pattern of thinking goes like this:

1) find something that science doesn’t currently or can’t ever understand. Perhaps the inability for scientists to agree on the length of coast lines: https://youtu.be/AD4vPNBSrKY

2) gaze in amazement at the limitation of man, take some swipes at the materialists for their hubris and ignorance.

3) bring it all home to the Book of Mormon and say that religious claims can’t be disproven either, because science is just so darn limited.

4) Q.E.D. Atheists pwned

The best part about this? You can take any conspiracy theory you want and apply Dan’s neat trick to it. Suddenly even crazy ideas (like Hebrews making a transoceanic voyage in 600BC and building a civilization of several million hidden in the jungle) become plausible! Hooray! Go science!

[Philo Sofee]

Actually, Peterson is correct here. Logic and math do have limits and won't be the end all, be all, for truth. They are a part of the whole, but cannot lead us to the whole. This is truly basic. Now if he then goes on to say this means religion does give you the whole, religion as in church organized religion, then I can't agree with him.

However, Morris Kline's astounding book Mathematics and the Loss of Certainty and William Byers How Mathematicians Think, Using Ambiguity, Contradiction, and Paradox to Create Mathematics are 2 very insightful books about why we will never get to the whole truth via mathematics. This is not the defect of science or mathematics, it is by their very nature. Peterson is fighting against scientism, the idea that science is the only way to truth, the end all be all, and only real knowledge comes that way and in no other way. In that, I am entirely in agreement with him. In the meantime, there is much more creativity, invention, and learning to do through math and science to last us our lifetimes, so the future is rather exciting!

[Gadianton]

I’m waiting for DCP to make this argument, owning the “dogmatic materialist atheist fanatics.” He seems to be collecting lists of the limitations of science for his soon to be published book. So that he can then use them to make belief in the literal Book of Mormon seem less ridiculous.

Here’s his recent blog on the limitations of math: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... nal-1.html

Dan’s pattern of thinking goes like this:

1) find something that science doesn’t currently or can’t ever understand. Perhaps the inability for scientists to agree on the length of coast lines: https://youtu.be/AD4vPNBSrKY

2) gaze in amazement at the limitation of man, take some swipes at the materialists for their hubris and ignorance.

3) bring it all home to the Book of Mormon and say that religious claims can’t be disproven either, because science is just so darn limited.

4) Q.E.D. Atheists pwned

The best part about this? You can take any conspiracy theory you want and apply Dan’s neat trick to it. Suddenly even crazy ideas (like Hebrews making a transoceanic voyage in 600BC and building a civilization of several million hidden in the jungle) become plausible! Hooray! Go science!

I agree that's probably where he's going with it. lol. You have to wonder, if he's so humble about math, which is way at the top of the certainty stack, then why is he so disproportionately boastful about summaries of studies saying religion is so beneficial to people?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Actually, Peterson is correct here. Logic and math do have limits and won't be the end all, be all, for truth. They are a part of the whole, but cannot lead us to the whole. This is truly basic. Now if he then goes on to say this means religion does give you the whole, religion as in church organized religion, then I can't agree with him.

However, Morris Kline's astounding book Mathematics and the Loss of Certainty and William Byers How Mathematicians Think, Using Ambiguity, Contradiction, and Paradox to Create Mathematics are 2 very insightful books about why we will never get to the whole truth via mathematics. This is not the defect of science or mathematics, it is by their very nature. Peterson is fighting against scientism, the idea that science is the only way to truth, the end all be all, and only real knowledge comes that way and in no other way. In that, I am entirely in agreement with him. In the meantime, there is much more creativity, invention, and learning to do through math and science to last us our lifetimes, so the future is rather exciting!

What has woo given us in the way of ”truth” that science hasn’t?

Obviously I won’t ask the inverse because it’s too lengthy to list out.

- Doc

[Meadowchik]

There's a very simple test here:

What else can't you disprove via science?

The Lochness Monster
Big Foot
Scientology
.
.
.
Etc...

So does that company inspire you? Do you now feel compelled to join the Mormons??

[Philo Sofee]

Actually, Peterson is correct here. Logic and math do have limits and won't be the end all, be all, for truth. They are a part of the whole, but cannot lead us to the whole. This is truly basic. Now if he then goes on to say this means religion does give you the whole, religion as in church organized religion, then I can't agree with him.
However, Morris Kline's astounding book Mathematics and the Loss of Certainty and William Byers How Mathematicians Think, Using Ambiguity, Contradiction, and Paradox to Create Mathematics are 2 very insightful books about why we will never get to the whole truth via mathematics. This is not the defect of science or mathematics, it is by their very nature. Peterson is fighting against scientism, the idea that science is the only way to truth, the end all be all, and only real knowledge comes that way and in no other way. In that, I am entirely in agreement with him. In the meantime, there is much more creativity, invention, and learning to do through math and science to last us our lifetimes, so the future is rather exciting!

What has woo given us in the way of”truth” that science hasn’t?

Obviously I won’t ask the inverse because it’s too lengthy to list out.

- Doc

Woo gives us entertainment, as does science. I don't see them as diametric opposites, why should I? They are all part of our human experience. It isn't a contest, even though both sides erroneously imagine it is.

[doubtingthomas]

Peterson is fighting against scientism, the idea that science is the only way to truth, the end all be all, and only real knowledge comes that way and in no other way. In that, I am entirely in agreement with him.

How else can we learn about the natural world? There may be a better method, but nobody has discovered it.

[doubtingthomas]

Actually, Peterson is correct here. Logic and math do have limits and won't be the end all, be all, for truth.

Which truth? Is morality subjective?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What has woo given us in the way of”truth” that science hasn’t?

Obviously I won’t ask the inverse because it’s too lengthy to list out.

- Doc

Woo gives us entertainment, as does science. I don't see them as diametric opposites, why should I? They are all part of our human experience. It isn't a contest, even though both sides erroneously imagine it is.

I’m not going to parse your statement I initially quoted, but what you just posted ^ isn’t congruent with it at all. You’re stating two contradictory things, and that’s not a strong philosophical position. By being wishy washy or shifting in and out of a pro-woo position your statements come across as confusing at best.

So, just to be sure I’m reading you correctly, are you asserting from the first quote above that woo has given us “truths” that science hasn’t? If so, please let us know unambiguously what they are.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Actually, Peterson is correct here. Logic and math do have limits and won't be the end all, be all, for truth. They are a part of the whole, but cannot lead us to the whole. This is truly basic. Now if he then goes on to say this means religion does give you the whole, religion as in church organized religion, then I can't agree with him.

However, Morris Kline's astounding book Mathematics and the Loss of Certainty and William Byers How Mathematicians Think, Using Ambiguity, Contradiction, and Paradox to Create Mathematics are 2 very insightful books about why we will never get to the whole truth via mathematics. This is not the defect of science or mathematics, it is by their very nature. Peterson is fighting against scientism, the idea that science is the only way to truth, the end all be all, and only real knowledge comes that way and in no other way. In that, I am entirely in agreement with him. In the meantime, there is much more creativity, invention, and learning to do through math and science to last us our lifetimes, so the future is rather exciting!

I think you’re conflating two very different aspects of science. It could very well be the case that science is the only way to discover truth and that science is unable to discover all truth. In fact, why would it be reasonable to assume that it is possible for humans to discover all truth?

What that means is that no amount of carping about scientism will tell us anything about whether religion Cam leads us to discover any truth at all. Whether religion is a possible, let alone reliable, means of discovering truth is an issue completely independent of science.

Of course, absent some kind of definition of “truth,” The possibilities for equivocation are endless.