Re: POTM post of the month nomination

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:21:31 -0800, snex wrote:

On Jan 24, 3:16 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:06:26 -0800,

Earle Jones <earle.jo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

*
VBM: Your arguments are thoughtful. And you know how to spell and
punctuate. That makes your ideas refreshing to read.

Do you believe in life after death? Do you believe that a person can
be dead and then arise from the dead?

Do you believe that, at any time in the history of human beings, that
some lived to be 900 years old?

If you believe either of the above (or a few dozen other examples),
then there are scientific theories that you do not agree with.

I think what he's arguing is that he believes that God can produce
exceptions to that rule. I still think that's simply a way of moving
clearly impossible things off the ledger, while still claiming the
ledger can produce a proper accounting over things.

the beauty of science is that it enables us to draw broad general
conclusions from examining only a few specific examples.

That's math, not science. I take it you don't do experimental science
for a living. I do. If I tried to get away with "broad general
conclusions from examining only a few specific examples" I would have a
bacchanal of anonymous reviewers toasting marshmallows on my career.

by claiming
that there are exceptions to the rule without presenting evidence that
this is the case, one is denying one of the most powerful aspects of
science from having any relevance to the world around us.

Of course, *you* tend to draw broad general conclusions from a few
specific examples. It's a bad habit you've picked up. Any "exception"
will have evidence, if only the eyewitness report. Claiming the
"exception" is supernatural removes science from examining the exception,
not "from having any relevance to the world around us".

So yes, you have a very, very tiny point: claiming something to be
miraculous removes it from scientific discourse. As the number of these
miracles are vanishingly small and are clearly labeled as not requiring
changes to any "natural" laws (as they are *super*natural events),
science somehow manages to soldier on.





--
Aaron Clausen mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx

fnor

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: POTM post of the month nomination
    ... be dead and then arise from the dead? ... That's math, not science. ... to draw the broad general conclusion that this medicine will continue ... "exception" is supernatural removes science from examining the exception, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: POTM post of the month nomination
    ... dead and then arise from the dead? ... clearly impossible things off the ledger, while still claiming the ledger ... science from having any relevance to the world around us. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Explain Little Lucys deposition?
    ... even the history of science. ... slow moving flood waters covered the bones, ... their dead. ... Fire is a _difficult_ technology. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... person is irrevocably dead. ... science-denier, science disproves the resurrection. ... different than calling racists' beliefs absurd and demanding ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... If you knew anything about science, ... If you really think that science requires that events obey the laws ... nature, then you simply don't understand the nature or method of how ... people how are considered "dead" do in fact "come back ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading