Jump to content

The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible


Recommended Posts

I gave you 80.  Will you also read Kuhn?  Click on the link and the name of the researcher.  From there you can link to their peer reviewed articles directly. 

 

but you forgot to read part 2, please read it and I will read Kuhn. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-projectPart2.html

 

Science progresses through the peer-reviewed literature; unless an idea, theory, or interpretation is reported in a peer-reviewed journal, it is just someone’s unsubstantiated opinion. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not ensure that an author’s arguments will stand the test of time, but rather that they have been scrutinized by experts and judged to represent a contribution to science that others in the field can benefit from knowing about. Climate skeptics give the impression that there is a substantial case against human-caused global warming. But is it true?

 

I can give you far more, that is why the CO2 caused theory is most likely true, that is why we should take it seriously. 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-projectPart2.html

Science advances through the peer-reviewed primary literature. Peer-review is not perfect, but it is the best system humans have invented for uncovering and correcting errors. In science, the truth will out.

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Link to post

God can do whatever he wants.

 

Correct. Indeed, the whole universe was created 6 days, 14 hours, and 37 seconds ago. He also put everything into the exact position that would be consistent with explanations of a longer age (e.g. timestamped posts from me last month or years ago). And nobody can prove otherwise either. :diablo:

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

If Kuhn is wrong, I don't see how the gospel could possibly be "true".

This is not just an idle comment. Kuhn's view us essential to a pragmatic view of Truth, which is the best theory to justify the truth of religious experience.

Moroni 10:5 is not exactly scientific observation.

Link to post

Science advances through the peer-reviewed primary literature. Peer-review is not perfect, but it is the best system humans have invented for uncovering and correcting errors. In science, the truth will out.

That's The problem.

Science does not show "truth", it justifies belief in theories which assume that ultimate truth can be discovered by science.

It cannot.

We have been over this a million times just in this thread. Do we really have to revisit that discussion I had with Tarski?

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

That's The problem.

Science does not show "truth", it justifies belief in theories which assume that ultimate truth can be discovered by science.

It cannot.

We have been over this a million times just in this thread. Do we really have to revisit that discussion I had with Tarski?

Its good that the Book of Mormon didnt have to be peer reviewed or we would be screwed.

Link to post

Correct. Indeed, the whole universe was created 6 days, 14 hours, and 37 seconds ago. He also put everything into the exact position that would be consistent with explanations of a longer age (e.g. timestamped posts from me last month or years ago). And nobody can prove otherwise either. :diablo:

 

Agreed. Maybe it is just me but I refuse to believe in a deceptive God.

Link to post

That's The problem.

Science does not show "truth", it justifies belief in theories which assume that ultimate truth can be discovered by science.

It cannot.

We have been over this a million times just in this thread. Do we really have to revisit that discussion I had with Tarski?

 

Science doesn't show truth. What is does present is facts, and presents logical predictions based on those facts. IE; Gravity is an illusion. The explanation for that illusion is the Theory of Gravity. We're still trying to figure out exactly what gravity is.

SEE https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=AwrTcdeVnAlVET8Ai2InnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0aWRtNmFyBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMV8x?p=gravity+is+an+illusion+think+big+youtube&tnr=21&vid=53738607C289713F9BE053738607C289713F9BE0&l=506&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.608018158158088460%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11raulnep&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhByJBdQXjXU&sigr=11bj107rn&tt=b&***=Erik+Verlinde%3A+Gravity+Doesn%26%2339%3Bt+Exist&sigt=118opavjq&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dgravity%2Bis%2Ban%2Billusion%2Bthink%2Bbig%2Byou%2Btube%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=13l1opoe8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

 

Science doesn't claim to know the ultimate truth. It is just the best explanation we have SO FAR for any give observation. Science is always tentative.

Link to post

Science doesn't show truth. What is does present is facts, and presents logical predictions based on those facts. IE; Gravity is an illusion. The explanation for that illusion is the Theory of Gravity. We're still trying to figure out exactly what gravity is.

SEE https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=AwrTcdeVnAlVET8Ai2InnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0aWRtNmFyBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMV8x?p=gravity+is+an+illusion+think+big+youtube&tnr=21&vid=53738607C289713F9BE053738607C289713F9BE0&l=506&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.608018158158088460%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11raulnep&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhByJBdQXjXU&sigr=11bj107rn&tt=b&***=Erik+Verlinde%3A+Gravity+Doesn%26%2339%3Bt+Exist&sigt=118opavjq&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dgravity%2Bis%2Ban%2Billusion%2Bthink%2Bbig%2Byou%2Btube%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=13l1opoe8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

 

Science doesn't claim to know the ultimate truth. It is just the best explanation we have SO FAR for any give observation. Science is always tentative.

 

And of course nobody ever interprets facts incorrectly do they?  Or personal bias?

Link to post

And of course nobody ever interprets facts incorrectly do they?  Or personal bias?

 

Was Newton incorrect. Yes, but correct enough that we sent spacecraft out of our solar system. His personal bias didn't allow for Perturbation Theory for how the planets keep in pretty good ellipses.

Link to post

Was Newton incorrect. Yes, but correct enough that we sent spacecraft out of our solar system. His personal bias didn't allow for Perturbation Theory for how the planets keep in pretty good ellipses.

 

Again the problem is not the being incorrect but in presenting those "close" answers as the correct answers.

Link to post

Again the problem is not the being incorrect but in presenting those "close" answers as the correct answers.

 

You believe the correct answer is that Macro-Evolution is incorrect. 

Again, you are 100% certain that Macro-Evolution did not happen. 

Again, you say that is is a fact that it is not a fact. 

 

You are the only one that talks with absolute certainty. 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Link to post

You believe the correct answer is that Macro-Evolution is incorrect. 

Again, you are 100% certain that is not true.  

Again, you say that is is a fact that Macro-Evolution is impossible. 

 

You are the only one that talks with absolute certainty. 

 

Again you misunderstand.  There are no correct answers.  There are only answers that are correct from a certain point of view.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Again you misunderstand.  There are no correct answers.  There are only answers that are correct from a certain point of view.

Yuppers.
Link to post

Deceptive?! God hasn't directly told us anything to contradict the now 7 day old universe. :mega_shok:

In fact Bertrand Russell discussed the fact that it cannot be proven that the world didn't blink into existence 5 minutes ago.
Link to post

Is your statement an fact or a point of view?

 

God exist, is that a fact or just a point of view? 

For me they are points of view, because that's all anyone has about anything.

 

Is that statement itself a point of view?  Yep.

 

So what?

 

Absolutists don't understand relativists.   They always come back with "AHA! Then your statement CAN'T be TRUE!!"

 

The relativist answers "Yep!  Now you are beginning to understand! And of course neither can yours be true"

 

The problem is that there is no satisfactory definition of the word "true".  We know how to use it in certain contexts, we can tell a lie from a truth but describing what makes a proposition "true" is no easy feat.

Link to post

If it were a fact, in the usual sense of that term, that God exists, there would be no atheists.

 

Clearly there ARE atheists so God's existence must be a point of view.

 

This is not rocket science

 

Facts, I suppose are supposed to be objectively verifiable.  The existence of God clearly is not.  Yet of course it is true that he exists.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post

Is your statement an fact or a point of view?

 

God exist, is that a fact or just a point of view? 

 

1)  Fact from my point of view.  Oh and by the way Nibley agrees with me.  See his paper "Before Adam".

 

2) Fact from my point of view and I assume yours too but as mfbukowski points out an atheist probably would not agree with us.

Link to post

Tell that to the truck speeding towards you. ;)

You too misunderstand.  If I were in the path of a speeding truck my pov would be different than if I were in my car following it and I doubt that the truck has a pov at all so this ends up as another one of your poor analogies.

Edited by ERayR
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Absolutists don't understand relativists.   They always come back with "AHA! Then your statement CAN'T be TRUE!!"

 

He originally said it as a fact, or it seemed to. 

 

1)  Fact from my point of view.  

 

I agree that Macro-Evolution has not been proven with absolute certainty, but it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 

"My point of view" is not always useful, we have to make important decisions sometimes. 

 

Reasonable certainties are not absolute certainties, to get somewhere we must look for reasonable certainties or reasonable probabilities. 

 

How do you guys define a "fact"? 

 

 

Tell that to the truck speeding towards you. ;)

 

LOL 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Link to post

I agree that Macro-Evolution has not been proven with absolute certainty, but it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 

"My point of view" is not always useful, we have to make important decisions sometimes. 

 

Reasonable certainties are not absolute certainties, to get somewhere we must look for reasonable certainties or reasonable probabilities. 

 

How do you guys define a "fact"? 

 

 

 

LOL 

 

Macro-evolution is still imaginative interpretation.

 

My point of view is indeed important to me.  It keeps me from turning over my salvation to anybody else but Jesus.

 

Again "Reasonable certainties" and "reasonable probabilities" depend on where one is observing it from.

 

Fact:  something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence : a true piece of information

Facts still need interetation and that comes from pov.  Example:  Fact - The prisoner had blood all over his face.  How did his face get bloodied?

Link to post

Macro-evolution is still imaginative interpretation.

 

That is a fact in your view, are you 100% certain that it did not happen?

 

My point of view is indeed important to me.

 

Everybody has a point of view, but everybody should look for the most reasonable point of view. 

Everybody should be open minded. 

 

 

Facts still need interetation and that comes from pov.

 

There are an infinite number of interpretations, so lets try to look for the most reasonable ones that we have the capacity to find. 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...