Jesus Christ is Lord!

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps questions that science hasn't yet answered. However, this is not a weakness of science, it is a strength. The gaps in scientific knowledge don't justify filling them in with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. This is called the God of the Gaps Fallacy.

How do you know? Can you call a scientific theory a science of the gaps fallacy?
That statement can be just as boring as yours? This is fun. . The gaps in scientific knowledge does not justify filling them in with theoretical scientific mumbo-jumbo. This is called science of the gaps fallacy? Believing that science is going to explain everything has not been realized. It really is no different than believing that God is going to explain everything that has not either. Note: my interpretation of God may be different than yours anyways. It is more like the definition of a noun, than an actual sigular thing, person, or entity. It is love. That can be me or whatever else. It can be the same. Mutual. I like it that way, because unlike your definition, and most all religious definitions, it doesn't make me feel like crap.

Theory or hypothesis? Not that it matters as the answer remains 'no'.



Either you haven't heard of the scientific method or you are wilfully ignoring its existence. If it's the former, have a read of this: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

It is inherently unscientific to believe that 'science is going to explain everything'. We are very unlikely to run out of questions to answer.

No, this would be called conjecture. Conjecture, as you should know, is one of several useful tools which can help determine where and how to start looking for the actual answer. Either you simply do not care that you are erroneously using the term Scientific Theory to mean conjecture or you have no idea what a Scientific Theory actually is. This does not mean a scientific theory is inviolate, no one should suggest that a current theory is the final word on the subject, instead if a theory is disproven it is seen as a good approximation. Newtons laws of gravity are a good example of this, his law is wrong, yet it is a close enough approximation that is is still used today. For you to compare scientific progress and change to god of the gaps is plain ignorant.

Contemporary examples please?


Accepting that we will likely never understand everything does not lessen our knowledge nor should it allow for crackpot theories to be accepted. In my mind there is nothing so fallacious as "science does not know everything" as a defence for a nonsensical posit.

And lastly, the title of the video should be "Five questions science has not yet answered" non of them are simple, and saying science can't answer requires a time machine. Not only that, Sam Datta-Paulin has made the same mistake you and the new statesman made in presenting the bike evidence . Which again goes to show that rather than listening to quick 8 minute videos by broadcast journalists it is more advisable to read complete papers or at least summaries from people who have the necessary experience to write them.

Okay.

Lets compromise.

Keep on teaching evolution in schools because science has disproven the account in Genesis.

But we should START teaching school kids that each and every bicycle rider is constantly followed by invisible guardian angel to keep them upright at all times because science has yet to disprove that.

Works for me.

Of course you have to redefine traditional concepts of God because the character they describe is not worthy of worship. And by a relative lack of definition, we avoid the trouble of having to justify our beliefs, after all they make us feel good, and God's nature is beyond our power to ascertain anyway.

How do we know science works, and scientific guess are better than random guesses? Technology. If science didn't work, there would be no technological progress. What has religion given us? At best, hope in the irrational. Is that worth it for all it's cost? In these times, having a sound foundation in reality seems to me to be more important. How else can we confront our unique challenges? Religion has a purpose, but these can be achieved by secular means, free from superstition and attachment to outdated moral codes.

Jesus Christ may be your Lord be he sure ain't mine

ruveyn

My goodness you are a wonder, truly you are. I have never come across a walking talking logical fallacy before.

That I can picture him slapping himself on the back in smug self-satisfaction after hitting the submit button further adds to my concerns for the future of our species.

I'm going to throw one out here again for fun. It's reads to me like this scientific meathod cannot work if it has nothing to go by. Ultimately ruling out things that can in fact be real. I am relating to simple things that I always use as a contradiction of science. Like dreaming. The use, and practice of it has absolutely no scientific value, because their is nothing to back it up with the exception of some squiggles on some electrical equipment, and what have you. Yet it has substance. It does exist. It is real. Perhaps even more real than science could ever realize. Denouncing this fact. Can deteriorate the very existence of human evolution, and what we know about the mind, how it functions, why, and perhaps even a broader spectrum of the cosmos.

Three potential new things learned here:

For anyone who's actually been listening to Natural Plastic for years, the statement above certainly cannot be taken literally. Natural Plastic is a science dude; it even shows in his user name, if you will.

In other words, it is what can be described as dry Aspie humor; no my wife cannot understand my humor either; nor most people here. That's par for the course, I guess.

And what naturally goes along with that difficulty with cognitive empathy is misconstrued intent of what the other person is saying.

Oh, then and yes that, can lead to personal attacks.

A debate among folks with this higher functioning autism thingy, is like herding cats.

There is often no rhyme or reason; often 'herd', by the individual 'cats'.

The best solution for this issue for folks who have the human attribute described as patience, is clarification and verification of social communication, including attempts at logical debate.

In other words ask questions, if the response seems strange. Chances are all your concerns will evaporate that way.

Now to do that myself here, at this point in time, which I am trying really hard to do, in this forum, is to clarify that now, there is a little so called Aspie dry humor
included in this response here.

Yes, my humor is rather dry, and hard to understand for most folks, but I continue to practice some form of humor, otherwise, in general, human communication that is devoid of any humor is really dry and folks just tend drift off to sleep and learn absolutely nothing from it.

Yes, folks, Natural Plastic was involved in Journalism in real life, so I'm quite sure he had to learn this principle to get by in life; just as I did too, working with tens of thousands of people in the general public, partly responsible for whether or not they smiled when they were in my company as a customer of the government.

I was good at it, and noted as good as it, cause I practiced human interaction in real life, like hell yes, a real science, over and over and over, hundreds of thousands of times, until I got it right.

Part of the reason for this entire forum, is actually therapy; I use it in part, still for honing in on social interaction skills.

For a person with my type of Autism, it's not like falling off a bicycle and getting right back on and knowing how to ride; it takes continual practice, to keep getting it right.

How do I know.

I fell of my bicycle and didn't get back on. Big mistake, for five years, but no way I could avoid it cause of physical illness.

The bicycle thingy is a metaphor, by the way, not to be taken literally; it is a metaphor for in the wild social interaction. Practice means being able to do it. No practice means not being able to do it. It's kind of like simple math. :)

The smile means I'm just trying to help here, and there is no intent of personal attack; believe it or not.

And the reason a human really can ride a bicycle, is not because of the unknown laws of physics that allow it; it's simply evidence of human beings 'natural plasticity' in learning new things.

Part of the reason there is hope even for autistic folks to live and learn, the principles and ways of successfully reciprocally communicating with the much bigger 'herd' of 'heard' out there. Adapt and survive; don't adapt and don't survive.

The most basic law of science in all animal nature:

Natural plasticity is truly it.

By the way, natural plastic, liking your user name more and more, during this series of reciprocal social interactions. But that's okay, no need for anyone to respond. That too, is par for the course, here. Not a place to look for that basic human need, for most folks; I'm truly afraid for them, no not me; I can get it from real life easily now, as I did my homework, and reap the benefits of it everyday, in real life, yes.

I have the documented evidence for that too, if anyone questions it; yes, in real life, living color.

Last edited by aghogday on 10 Sep 2014, 8:58 am, edited 3 times in total.

I'm going to make you think more about your beliefs in order to write alot more stuff, and prove your unquestionable genius intelligence about all these great subjects you know do much about, and ask this: God is a theory. Because I think so. I am determined to find a practicle use for it. How is that any different than a scientific one?

Yes. Which is a part of the credibility of the Scientific Method.



^This is the exact opposite of what the Scientific Method does. It rules out what is impossible, not what is possible.



Science has most definitely NOT denounced dreams. It has frequently had difficulty fully explaining them, and it has disproved many a hypothesis along the way. But it most definitely acknowledges them and is currently the subject of much research for the how and the why. When (or if) they figure it out, they will probably discover more in the subject area to investigate, anf others will likely try to discredit science by saying something along the lines of "we know how and why dreams work, but science can't predict or explain individual dreams, which must prove it is from a higher power."



Evolution still has many questioned to be answered, but it most definitely exists and many of the ways it can happen have been independently observed under many different conditions. We may discover more mechanisms for it to happen or more factors affecting those currently known in the future (which is likely), but to think it will be disproven in the future is quite a blind way to look at things.

Science may not have discovered the vast majority of the how and why of the cosmos, and likely never will. That does not, however, invalidate what we do know is and is not possible.

God is not a theory by any scientific definition of the word, including as it is defined by the many Christian scientists out there.

God as a theory is exactly as scientific as the existence of human colonies in the center of the sun as a theory.

It isn't very different, yet - you're simply on step one. What happens next is the important part.

I saw the following first posted here by Fnord but, not to discredit his work in writing it, it's still just a stepwise summary of well-established working principles which can be found described in many other places - and in may other posts here on WP.

The Scientific Method:

1) Develop a new hypothesis. A hypothesis is merely an idea that is usually based on passive observations of natural events. An idea does not have to be supported, but if it does not, then it remains only an idea.
2) Search for related data, which may be found in the results of previous research, whether or not the results of the previous research actually support the previous research.
3) If existing data does not support the hypothesis, then return to step 1.
4) Create a new supporting theory. A theory attempts to explain the hypothesis in a cause-and-effect manner. Never propose a theory that is not supported by available evidence.
5) Perform experiments to test the theory. Experiments must be appropriate to the proposed theory, and must be both repeatable and verifiable.
6) If the experimental results do not support the theory, then return to step 4.
7) Record findings and submit to peer-review process. A peer group is composed of professional researchers in the field of study that the theory addresses. The peer group will first examine the initial data for factual errors, then the theory for errors of reasoning, and then perform the same experiments under the same conditions to validate or invalidate the theory.
8) If the peer-review process produces conflicting evidence, then return to step 4.
9) At this point, the theory becomes a scientific principle.
10) Publish the results.

Compare and contrast with -
The Fantasy Method for Promoting Delusion and Ignorance:

1) Form an opinion. This opinion does not have to be founded on anything other than dreams, fantasies, fears, hallucinations, ignorance, imagination, legends, myths, prejudices, speculation, superstitions, suspicions, or wishful thinking.
2) Search for supporting data. If any data conflicts with the original opinion then discredit, distort, or ignore the conflicting data. If the conflicting facts or opinions can not be adequately discredited, then the person(s) presenting the conflicting facts or opinions (the ?critic? or ?skeptic?) must be discredited.
3) Publish the opinion.
4) If any critic or skeptic comes forward with facts or opinions that conflict with the original opinion then discredit, distort, or ignore the conflicting facts, while simultaneously discrediting the person(s) presenting the conflicting facts or opinions.
5) Expand the original opinion into unrelated fields of interest.
6) Repeat from Step 2.

Note that while the Scientific Method is self-correcting and tends to discard and ignore invalid ideas, the Fantasy method does not allow for correction, and thus actually promotes ideas that have no validity in the real world. The Scientific Method is used by those who would seek to determine The Truth about life, the universe, and everything, while those who use the Fantasy Method seek only to gain notoriety through the dissemination and repetition of urban myths, conspiracy theories, and superstitious nonsense.

^