Re: The practical meaning is that the metaphysical doctrine of Naturalismis false.

T Pagano wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:25:46 +0100, Erwin Moller
> <since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>What is the practical meaning of finding historical references to
>>Miracle-performing-Jesus?
>
>
> At the very least----in the context of this forum------it means that
> the doctrine of Naturalism is false.
>
>
>>Somebody else in another thread said: Historical evidence is often weak.
>
>
> No collection of observations----which can be labeled "evidence"----is
> sufficient to uniquely determine the theory explaining the events
> behind them. That is, there may be a large number of theories that
> can explain the same set of observations with no easy means of
> determining which one, if any, are close to the truth. Given this
> indisputable fact all evidence, especially so-called "scientific"
> evidence is "weak."
>
>
>
>>It is entirely possible Pythagoras never existed.
>>(to with I completely agree)
>>Did Pythagoras really exist?
>>But that doesn't really matter when it comes to the contributions to
>>science/math, we now credit Pythagoras for.
>
>
> But it matters a great deal if we're interested in the truth about the
> origin of and the development of Pythagorian ideas and thinking.
> Without Pythagorus it was not necessarily inevitable that Pythagorean
> philosophy would have been generated by someone else.
>
>
>
>>That is the good thing about science: Claims are not relying on individuals,
>>but on described experiments or ready-to-check mathequations.
>
>
> Here Moller seems to be under the mistaken notion that "Science"
> progresses independently of individuals (like Pythagorus) who generate
> original and novel ideas. The history of scientific discovery (as
> opposed to technological exploitation of those discoveries) is one of
> individuals in history making wonderful and ingenious leaps of
> insight, often irrational leaps, not logical deductions from our
> scientific background knowledge.
>
> Based upon the mistaken premise that scientific "evidence" is
> inherently "stronger" than historical evidence Moller argues that he
> can safely ignore the history of the origin of those leaps of insight.
> And once he excises the necessity of human leaps of insight in history
> Moller sees scientific progress as an almost inevitable process
> whereby any duly endoctrinated "scientific" technician simply need
> open his/her eyes and apply the vaunted "scientific method."
>
> Sadly this sort of nonsense is what passes for science education in
> US.

And you think science should be shaped to fit each individual's personal
belief system? Or only yours? How would a teacher know what to teach?

CT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Times When the F Bomb is Acceptable
    ... There are only eleven times in history where the "F" word has been ... -- Einstein, 1938 ... -- Picasso, 1926 ... -- Pythagoras, 126 BC ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • When is @#$% Acceptable?
    ... There have been only eleven times in history where that word was ... -- Pythagoras, 126 BC ... "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?" ... -- Michelangelo, 1566 ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: abundance of irrationals!)
    ... they recognized (even with Pythagoras and Euclid) that irrational ... Good point about the lengths. ... history of math to say one way or the other. ...
    (sci.math)
  • ebooks share lits 200
    ... Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium ... Reformation in Britain and Ireland Oxford History of the Christian ... Literature and Culture, State and Nation, ... Historical Guide to Edgar Allan Poe Historical Guides to American ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... "Logic and science work." ... attempt to depict history, and can on ocassion do so with great insight. ... You are perfectly free to hold whatever arbitrary beliefs you wish. ... Saying that modern Christians deny anatomy shows how your own ...
    (talk.origins)