Originally posted by Ytse
I don't know. Is there a habit of accusing new guys of being banned members to try and discredit them?
New members do not join existing discussions and continue the arguments of banned members:
Originally posted by Ytse
Why don't you tell me why science is successful then? It certainly cannot justify itself.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
..the point all along has been that science itself can not justify it's own existence..so based on this, how can we accept anything as scientific?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
New members do not join existing discussions and continue the arguments of banned members:
This is nonsense.
Ad hominem attacks because you can't defeat my argument. I can't believe you actually have the audacity to make serious accusations like this to a stranger. Great way of making a new member of the community feel welcome.
And by the way, this kind of argument is way way older than myself or "whobdamandog" -- so it's rather foolish of you to say I'm merely picking up his old argument.
*sigh*
Because I used similar language as some other guy I'm going to get harassed. Is that it? I'm not even making the same freaking contention as this other person.
Maybe an admin could clear this up somehow. I've posted on all sorts of messageboards and this is the first time I've encountered such abject rudeness.
Adam, all you've demonstrated is that you need to develop some reading comprehension. If you've read this thread you'll notice that I never said science isn't useful. In fact I've restated many many times that that is NOT what I am contending. Yet, you quote some guy who seems to be saying that we cannot accept science. How on earth does that lead you to believe we are one in the same?
It would be funny if it weren't so annoying. Because I started this debate with some seemingly intelligent people and harassment is all you can contribute. You won't even respond to my PMs on the matter. So, I'm not sure what else to say.
Originally posted by YtseThe utility of inductive reasoning is evident in its practicality. Unless one is unable to learn from past example, once the utility of inductive reasoning is demonstrated, there is no justification for doubt in future applications (with regard to method).
I'm saying it ultimately lies on faith in inductive reasoning. If one does not accept that induction is justifiable at the outset then science can have no use. The doctor wouldn't know which medicine to give because he couldn't know if it would continue to work as it had before. No buildings could be built because the workers couldn't know if the next steel beam would support like the previous one. Etc, etc.
This is what I mean by reliability. Constant testing of specifics isn't necessary because science gives dependable information, allowing us to generalize. It's "faith," if you will, based on past example or experimentation, hardly faith as understood and commonly used by a religious POV, which can not demonstrate an equal degree of dependability.
Theism could be used to support inductive reasoning, yes, but IMO it is superfluous.
science= developing a hypothesis{speculative statement} extrapulated by evidence stating clearly the independant and dependant variable
testing the hypothesis by testing as far as possible the independant variable only
looking at the results, if they match the predictions of the hypothesis further tests are done, if the predictions of the hypothesis in a number of conclusive experiments are proven true, then the hypothesis becomes an accepted theory. the theory might be proven false even with one wrong conclusive result or might be added to in different untested conditions.
so yea science cannot disprove the existance of god. on the other hand LOGIC, deductive, syntactical, as well as extrapulant CAN and HAS disproven the existance of a god that is omnipotent, is omniscient, is omnibelevolant, is omniupresent, furthermore ANY combinations of the above omni's has been FULLY {be it only 2 or all} proven to be logically inconsistant and false. furthermore logic has proven the quran/hadith, bible/old/new/discarded, vedas/lower hindu scriptures. to ALL be mathematically and logically self contradicting{hence inconsistant} , false and for the most part unoriginal and a lie{statement prophesising or stating a false fact/prophecy}. furthermore the false statement can be extended to physical scientific knowledge and LOGICAL deductions/extrapolations maade on the basis of that knowledge. at the very least in thesephysical logics, certain constraints are put on god {although believers dont for the most part believe that god can surpass these illogically} which stop himi from being the god of the described and most other organised relegions which are atleast in some respect or completely monotheistic, or otherwise even}
Originally posted by Ytse
that science ultimately relies on a kind of faith to be useful.
You're not being intelligent or noble by suggesting that science is logically fallible. I could assume that the world is made up of tiny little elephants. You make these smae basic assumptiong every day and you're making billions of them now as you read/respond to this.[/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ytse
What're you saying?
Originally posted by YtseYou really suck at lying.
*sigh*Because I used similar language as some other guy I'm going to get harassed. Is that it? I'm not even making the same freaking contention as this other person.
Maybe an admin could clear this up somehow. I've posted on all sorts of messageboards and this is the first time I've encountered such abject rudeness.
Originally posted by Mindship
The utility of inductive reasoning is evident in its practicality. Unless one is unable to learn from past example, once the utility of inductive reasoning is demonstrated, there is no justification for doubt in future applications (with regard to method).
Using induction to justify induction is begging the question.
---------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Alliance
This is not faith at all, its called educated assumptions.
I'll quote something I said earlier:
"Hume (and later Bertrand Russell) came to the conclusion that we have no grounds for accepting inductive inferences as rational. But that we needed to abandon such skepticism to survive at all."
How can you be "educated" about the reliability of induction when any new observation just adds to the series?
You're not even quoting relevant sources.
You don't know anything about Hume if you think his observations about inductive reasoning aren't relevant.
Originally posted by Mindship
Reliability justifies induction.
Induciton cannot be shown to be reliable except via induction. You cannot reason by experience because you ultimately get to the point of trying to reason that the future will be like the past because in the past the future was like the past. Thus, begging the question.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reliability (in the vernacular) does not justify anything.
I've been using reliability in the scientific sense, as in consistent effects resulting from consistent causes. Certainly, without any notion of validity, reliability by itself justifies nothing. However, validity was not being discussed here, because on that point I agree with Ytse: science presents an as-if option, open to interpretation, just like religion.
As to the source of this interpretation: does it require a transcendent reality? Ultimately, we are dealing with the origin of meaning, and so there may be temptation to see something so intangible, yet profound, like meaning as explanable only through a transcendent reality.
IMO, that isn't necessary (but not necessarily wrong, either). In the past, those organisms with the genetic predisposition to see meaning, to learn from experience and build patterns which successfully enabled them to anticipate the future, had a better chance to survive and pass on their genes than those organisms which did not learn, for which the world was brand new every few seconds. Inductive reason simply did not exist for those beings.
Don't get me wrong: I've yet to come across a convincing argument for actively denying the existence of a God. But on the other hand, I'm not inclined to impose more meaning on a phenomenon (eg, inductive reasoning) than I necessarily have to.
Originally posted by Ytse
Induciton cannot be shown to be reliable except via induction. You cannot reason by experience because you ultimately get to the point of trying to reason that the future will be like the past because in the past the future was like the past. Thus, begging the question.
^ This argument sounds familiar:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
IS SCIENCE THE ULTIMATE TEST?In the early 20th century, some scientists and philosophers thought so. But, curiously, science itself turned out to be the first victim of this way of thinking. This is because, in order to get started, science has to make certain assumptions that cannot be proved scientifically. They are:
Rationality - that our thinking processes are basically reliable. (This assumption is needed in every area of life - even to discuss rationality!)
Orderliness - that there is an order to be discovered in nature - otherwise why do science at all?
Intelligibility - that our minds are able to discover this order.
Uniformity - that doing exactly the same experiment twice gives the same results. The scientific enterprise would be impossible without the assumption that there is a general uniformity in nature.
These basic beliefs, necessary for science, can't be proved scientifically...
Originally posted by Ytse
Induciton cannot be shown to be reliable except via induction. You cannot reason by experience because you ultimately get to the point of trying to reason that the future will be like the past because in the past the future was like the past. Thus, begging the question.
Well, if we are talking about induction in the mathematica sense it is an axiom that it works.