Re: Frame bending in Pib

Peter Trei wrote:
George Peatty wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:09:47 GMT, Peter Trei <treifamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

I don't see much consistency in your positions.

I know. You don't see any consistency in my views, because you do not see
the inconsistency in yours, you do not understand hermeneutics, and you do
not understand the history and philosophy of science. Rather remarkable the
last inasmuch as you are a professional scientist. I do not wish to reopen old discussions (and the old wounds that go with
them), but I can't resist quoting this article I saw the other day. It
summarizes my views on the relationship between science and the Bible
nicely:

...and so George demonstrates the old axiom:

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with
bull***."

You could *try* to respond to my post, but no....

Peter Trei

It's generally considered poor form to respond to one's own
posting, but I thought it worthwhile to expand on my remark,
which may look like I've gone the ad hominem route.

To reiterate: George claims the Earth and all the
universe are around 6000 years old, and that the
entire Earth was covered with floodwaters sometime
between 3000 and 5000 years ago. He does this because
the creation myths of some early Iron Age Semetic
goatherds make these claims, as recorded in the
Christian Bible.

George says "you do not understand hermeneutics, and
you do not understand the history and philosophy of
science".

I'll deal with these one at a time.

I'll concede that I've never spent much time on
hermeneutics (HN); it is irrelevant to my field
of knowledge. However, a quick read confirms that
it's also irrelevant to argument at hand.

HN is the study of texts; how they should be read
and interpreted. It says nothing about interpreting
the real world. To use Hermeneutics to study the
cosmology is as foolish as using genealogy to study
rocks, or etymology to study insects.

George (and the Bible) are making a claim about the
real world, which is subject to scientific confirmation
or refutation. Hermeneutics doesn't enter into it,
except to define the claims made. George has already
stipulated what those claims are (see above).

....and of course, the testimony of the real
world refutes these claims: the very rocks
and stones cry out their falsehood. As the
song quoted in an earlier post says: "Men wrote
the Bible; God wrote the rocks." I'll believe
the rocks, thank you.

Now, if George were to use HN to show that
Genesis 1:1-11:9 shouldn't be taken literally,
he'd be getting somewhere. But instead, he
takes the least supportable, most easily
refuted parts of the bible, and insists that
Things Really Happened That Way. It is sad.

As for George's claim that I don't understand
the 'history and philosophy of science', I
disagree. I've read Popper, I've studied
enough Kuhn to understand his theories.

I've certainly spent enough time studying
the history of science to feel competent in
that area.

In earlier threads, we've already shown that
George doesn't understand the scientific
method. I don't feel inclined at this time
to go down that rathole again. Perhaps
George can clarify where he thinks I'm
failing in that area.

Peter Trei








.