Re: OT - Re: Tim Daneluk

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Enoch Root wrote:


fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



Tim Daneliuk wrote:




You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at
the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this
materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting
points -
this includes Science.



Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?




That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big
Bang
Theory, and offer sources, cites.

I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
irrelevant^Wofftopic.



You need to understand the context of the quote. Someone described ID as
irrational "mumbo jumbo". I responded with the above quote as an example
where non-provable assumptions served as the basis for *science*. It had
nothing whatsoever to do with "undermining evolution" or "supporting
ID". It had to do with trying to swat away this contention (implicit in
much of that thread) that science is somehow epistemicly "purer" and/or
that ID is an idiotic position. In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
is Science.



You keep confusing science with philosophy, that's your problem. You


I am entirely clear on the distinction and have no conqsequent problem:

1) The philosophy of science requires "faith" in certain unprovable
starting points about the nature and efficacy of the methods of science.

On the contrary, Philosophy is perfectly happy and interested in
pursuing the question of god, and acknowledges the limitations of
knowledge: they are its bread. Philosophy acknowledges its
limitations, and even spends a great deal of ink studying them.

2) The practice of science is built upon the philosophy of science.

Science doesn't do anything other than provide a framework of inquiry.
Philosophy informs that, and describes its limits.

3) By Transitive Closure, the practice of science is thus built
(ultimately, subtlely) on a kind of "faith". That fact that this
belief is non-religious does not make it any less "faith".

blah. The fact is, ID proposes a "theory" that rightly is a
metaphysical question, not a testable theory of science.

know the word epistemology, but you don't understand it. (there's a
(very) little joke there, if you look)


You're right, it's very little.


don't trip while you backpeddle away from your statements.


I won't, I affirm them more strongly.

er
--
email not valid
.

Relevant Pages

  • Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Spanning Two Eras of Relativity
    ... "First Principles of a NEW System of Philosophy"? ... the Holy Ghost beareth record of this Scripture received by the ... Nobel Prize for Economic Science. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... >>>agree and then press for adding a philosophy of science course to the ... a philosophy of science course of this sort will be ... >>>taught by both a proponent of ID and of evolution. ... proposing originally. ...
    (talk.origins)