It's rather obvious, contextually, that one apply the "having actual existence or reality" meaning of the term. Do not let others deduce from your laughter and stunted semantics test that you are blissfully unaware of any dictionary.
5 foundational assumptions of science
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
It's rather obvious, contextually, that one apply the "having actual existence or reality" meaning of the term. Do not let others deduce from your laughter and stunted semantics test that you are blissfully unaware of any dictionary.
If you disagree that the essence of all science is its elegantly simple method of investigation, you've done so rather poorly, so far.
Even when one overlooks your personal pomp, and your judgemental and dismissive nature, one can't find in your comments a shred of counterargument, or original thought.
My point was not about "objectivity" at all, it is that Ms. Ferguson is mistaken, qualitatively, as to what constitutes science.
Science is not Religion, and no branch has a "pentateuch"- not even evolutionary cosmology.
Even when one overlooks your personal pomp, and your judgemental and dismissive nature, one can't find in your comments a shred of counterargument, or original thought.
My point was not about "objectivity" at all, it is that Ms. Ferguson is mistaken, qualitatively, as to what constitutes science.
Science is not Religion, and no branch has a "pentateuch"- not even evolutionary cosmology.
I'm not sure what makes you think I disagree with the method - empiricism works just fine for empirical phenomena
it certainly is my good fortune to have persons like yourself illuminate my shortcomings
you say it right here
The essence of all Science (capital "s") and it's constituent Branches is the Scientific Method; the "SM" contains no "assumptions" whatsoever, and deals only with investigating objective phenomena.
whatever, but measuring the claims of science against the methodology of science yields a few discrepancies
Sapere est docere
"The human mind is capable of constructing elaborate and beautiful models of reality, and wondrous device and artefact, but as we all know is also capable of imagining things that do not exist in and of themselves; that have no real existence; that are “not”. To assert the existence of something that is “not” (that is contradictory to our empirical sense), is delusion.
But imagination is part of the “toolkit” of human endeavour and reasoning. Co-option of this sense into self-sustaining “belief-systems” that will brook no logic but their own cycles of inference and deduction, is part of the human condition, but seems to apply largely to those humans who have not yet learned what learning is."
Cheers
"The human mind is capable of constructing elaborate and beautiful models of reality, and wondrous device and artefact, but as we all know is also capable of imagining things that do not exist in and of themselves; that have no real existence; that are “not”. To assert the existence of something that is “not” (that is contradictory to our empirical sense), is delusion.
But imagination is part of the “toolkit” of human endeavour and reasoning. Co-option of this sense into self-sustaining “belief-systems” that will brook no logic but their own cycles of inference and deduction, is part of the human condition, but seems to apply largely to those humans who have not yet learned what learning is."
Cheers
perhaps
however this existence is typically situated
therefore..exercising an random and arbitrary placement
i am outside
looking in
ja?
no?
Agreed.
Were there nothing at all for Humans to investigate further, and/or no "discrepancies" between previous and present observations, "science" would be indistinguishable from mere assertion and myth.
Scientific disciplines evolve over time in depth, breadth, resolution, and precision, in proportion to evidence and data, with the construction and publication of "better" theories for various phenomena. In that regard, Science is open and honest; the many branches of "hard" science are self-correcting, experimentally, and even the "soft" (more theoretical) sciences are apt to be constantly reviewed.
Ms. Ferguson's chosen field, in particular.
...
Ms. Ferguson either confabulates philosophy and science recklessly, or you are determined to present her statements in the worst possible light. Or both.
To characterize our discourse as "A gigantic misunderstanding" would be charitable, and ironic.
erm scientists - who else?
Now you're confusing the claims of scientists with science.
Scientists are human, and thus have personal agendas and are prone to subjectivity.
The better the scientist, the less these impact their work - the more closely they follow the Scientific methodology.
Since you would rather not have us judge a religion by the mass of people that do not adhere to all its particular requirements / beliefs, so please do not judge the methodology of Science with the claims of all "scientists". To do so is disingenuous, and you seem intelligent enough to know that this is what you are doing.
Scientists are human, and thus have personal agendas and are prone to subjectivity.
The better the scientist, the less these impact their work - the more closely they follow the Scientific methodology.
Since you would rather not have us judge a religion by the mass of people that do not adhere to all its particular requirements / beliefs, so please do not judge the methodology of Science with the claims of all "scientists". To do so is disingenuous, and you seem intelligent enough to know that this is what you are doing.
:shrug:
so it seems
That you do not dispute that the essence of science is its method, but do not concede the point either.
...
Shrug and smile, it accompanies your compound illogic and withdrawl from debate nicely.
the difference is that empiricism has no methodology for surmounting the personal agenda
Eh? Of course it does... it's called the Scientific Method.
If correctly followed - no issues.
But you would see a scientist - and by very dint of the fact he refers to himself as a scientist you would assume you know what the "scientific method" is merely by looking at what he does.
Exactly correct.
Now, it may very well be a conceit that one can 'overcome' one's subjectivity, but it's a useful, and fruitful conceit. The minimization of bias from an analysis is the best means to gathering significant data, which is required to support an hypothesis, which in turn is a means to prediction.
What I find odd here is that it appears that LG is of the opinion that religion has a methodology (at all..) of surmounting subjectivity. Religion is built upon subjectivity, celebrates subjectivity and indeed preys upon subjectivity.
Hardly a methodology that could be said to be increasing our epistemological understanding of our world.
sarkus & glaucon
There is ongoing debate on the subject, but most conventional mainstream archaeologists date the beginning of human habitation of the Americas to between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago. Additionally, Steen-McIntyre dates the Hueyatlaco artifacts to well before the conventionally-accepted appearance of sophisticated stone tools in Africa roughly 100,000 years ago.
The article categorizing the findings at Hueyatlaco was delayed for years. When it was finally published in 1981 it met widespread criticism [but not to our faces. VSMcI]. The team was accused of being publicity seekers and opportunists. Steen-McIntyre argues that her findings were rejected not on their failings or merits, but because her critics engaged in circular reasoning.[1] According to sympathizers of Steen-McIntyre, evidence and findings that do not support prevailing theories are often suppressed.
certainly virginia steen mcintyre had a different experience with her archaeological findings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Steen-McIntyre#Hueyatlaco
There is ongoing debate on the subject, but most conventional mainstream archaeologists date the beginning of human habitation of the Americas to between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago. Additionally, Steen-McIntyre dates the Hueyatlaco artifacts to well before the conventionally-accepted appearance of sophisticated stone tools in Africa roughly 100,000 years ago.
The article categorizing the findings at Hueyatlaco was delayed for years. When it was finally published in 1981 it met widespread criticism [but not to our faces. VSMcI]. The team was accused of being publicity seekers and opportunists. Steen-McIntyre argues that her findings were rejected not on their failings or merits, but because her critics engaged in circular reasoning.[1] According to sympathizers of Steen-McIntyre, evidence and findings that do not support prevailing theories are often suppressed.
then its obvious you are not familiar with the methodology
the next question is whether you think there are any problems that can be addressed by adopting existential standards of behaviour - IOW do you think being free from envy for instance would enable a greater epistemological understanding of the world or is it simply irrelevant in the jurisdiction of atoms and molecules?
Once simple case (or even a minority, regardless of number) is insufficient to reject the utility of a theory.
Indeed I am not, but that's wholly irrelevant here. What's at question is the purported methodology of religion(s) per se, not that of a member thereof.
No, the next question would be: how does one resolve the contradiction between the primacy of subjectivity in religion, and LG's assertion that religion promotes an agenda of overcoming that subjectivity.
Regardless, with respect to your comment: I do indeed agree with you that standards of behaviour would benefit our increase of knowledge. This is why we have normative legislation in contemporary society. What's more, there already is an established regulatory system that performs the same function with respect to the investigation of our world: the Scientific Method.