advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
What do you believe?
Posted by: Markiscool
Date: September 05, 2008 07:13AM
Hi folks. I got recruited (ok, I offered) to produce a few videos for my church. Interview style stuff. It is for a sermon series titled "I Want to Believe". A sample question would be "What has science proven?"

I'd like to sprinkle in some footage of folks from the web with the "man on the street" footage I've shot here in town. Basically I need to get folks on their webcams answering a few questions. I need to finish this tonight. If you can let me PM you the questions and then answer them on webcam and send the quicktime file back to me, please PM me and we can set something up.

Thanks!

-M
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: GrumpyOldMan
Date: September 05, 2008 07:22AM
Heh. As long as you balance it out with "How many people have died because of wars caused by religious differences?" and "Why do we think _our_ god is better than _their_ god?" and "What part of 'Thou shalt not kill' don't you understand?".
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: mikebw
Date: September 05, 2008 07:30AM
Is this meant to prove or disprove the existence of god?

I might be willing to go on camera as an atheist if that helps.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: billb
Date: September 05, 2008 07:32AM
Markiscool
Elitists aren't going to allow your project.
This is America.
Freedom of religion (or not) no longer exists.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: deckeda
Date: September 05, 2008 07:37AM
I might be willing to go on camera as an angry, low self-esteem conservative who therefore thinks liberals are out to eliminate religion if that helps.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: mikebw
Date: September 05, 2008 07:38AM
Quote
billb
Markiscool
Elitists aren't going to allow your project.
This is America.
Freedom of religion (or not) no longer exists.

My comment was not meant to be offensive or anything like that. I mean the series is called "I want to believe"-- So what if I don't?


Quickly turning political...

I would say that freedom itself no longer exists, at least not in the capacity that it once did.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Mike Sellers
Date: September 05, 2008 07:38AM
Moved to the other side in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: mikebw
Date: September 05, 2008 07:39AM
Quote
Mike Sellers
Moved to the other side in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .

You know it buddy!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: samintx
Date: September 05, 2008 07:49AM
I think you should as Bill Gates who does his commercials. They seem very effective.;)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Markiscool
Date: September 05, 2008 08:09AM
If you don't, then that is fine. It is to be shown during a service, so the focus would be on Christians. I have plenty of "man on the street" type footage so if no one participates, it won't be too bad. If you are interested, cool. If not, that is fine as well. I just thought it might be fun and a way to bring a different angle to the project. No big deal.

-M
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: JEBB
Date: September 05, 2008 08:14AM
I believe I'll ignore the rest of this replies to this post and have another cup of coffee.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Markintosh
Date: September 05, 2008 08:42AM
Ullr is my god.



“Live your life, love your life, don’t regret…live, learn and move forward positively.” – CR Johnson
Loving life in Lake Tahoe, CA
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: DaviDC.
Date: September 05, 2008 09:03AM




Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: gabester
Date: September 05, 2008 09:06AM
Quote
mikebw
Quote
billb
Markiscool
Elitists aren't going to allow your project.
This is America.
Freedom of religion (or not) no longer exists.

My comment was not meant to be offensive or anything like that. I mean the series is called "I want to believe"-- So what if I don't?


Quickly turning political...

I would say that freedom itself no longer exists, at least not in the capacity that it once did.

Last time I checked, there wasn't a major candidate running for office who was saying "Don't practice your faith in your home or your house of worship." But there are many saying, "This is a Christian nation" when our constitution expressly requires a separation of church and state, and our national heritage is that of religious outcasts persecuted in their countries of origin for their beliefs.
g=
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: karsen
Date: September 05, 2008 09:13AM
Just curious, what are the questions you'll ask?

What type of church?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Markiscool
Date: September 05, 2008 09:15AM
It is a Methodist church. I'll go ahead and give you the quesitons.

Questions:

1. What do you doubt?

2. What is absolutely true?

3. What has science absolutely proven?

4. What is the most important tenant of your religion?

5. What has religion proven?

6. What is hell like?

7. Why is there suffering?

8. How can God allow suffering?

9. What is the most unbelievable story in the bible?


PM me if you'd like to participate. You don't have to do all of them. You can pick and choose if you want.

-M
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: x-uri
Date: September 05, 2008 09:43AM
An interesting list of questions.

The qualifier "absolutely" in question 3 is meaningless. A hypothesis may be proven, unproven, or disproved. There are not degrees of "proveness". FWIW -- excluding purely mathematical propositions -- science has proven everything that is proven. By definition, a hypothesis that does not satisfy the conditions of scientific proof, falls into one of the other two categories

Question 5 is weird. The existence of religion may be proof of something, but religion itself is not in the business of proving things. Quite the reverse, in fact -- religious faith is belief in the absence of proof.

Throw away questions 3 and 5, and this might be an interesting exercise for your congregation. While "man on the street" interviews are statistically meaningless and intellectually lazy, there may be some value in hearing what a person from a different religious tradition from your own imagines hell to be like, or how the religious laity answer questions about "suffering"?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: beerman
Date: September 05, 2008 10:02AM
Markiscool, it sounds like a very interesting project and I'm sure your church appreciates the effort you are putting into this. Sacrificing your own personal time is the biggest gift you can give. Good luck with your project. Do you think it would be possible to post the finished video somewhere we could view it?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Markiscool
Date: September 05, 2008 10:04AM
These aren't all to be used together. They are broken up into segments to be shown throughout the series. As for "proving", I think what is being sought is what pops into people's heads without them analyzing it. "First Impression" type responses.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: September 05, 2008 10:14AM
Easy...

1. Anything perceived or intuited or derived to any extent through any process involving perception or intuition.
2. Anything excluding that which is established to any extent via perception or intuition or which fails to satisfy the requirements for a proof to an absolute certainty.
3. Nothing. Science does not deal in absolutes. The question is nonsensical.
4. Define "religion." If you're inquiring as to an organization that I belong to then I'd prefer not to speculate, but if you'd like I can refer you to a specialized religious teacher for an answer to that question as speculating upon such things is part of their work and you're more likely to receive an authoritative answer from such a person.
5. Define "religion" and your requirements and methodology for a proof.
6. Define "Hell." Demonstrate that there is a Hell. Observe it.
7. Define "suffering."
8. If there is an all-knowing, all-powerful deity that created and gave motivation to all of existence with deliberate intent then it follows that it/s/he deliberately created everything that presently is, including "suffering" if "suffering" exists. Therefore, the question is improperly structured as "god" -- by the definition that I believe you're premising the question upon -- would not merely "allow" suffering, but would have created and implemented it.
9. Which bible?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: karsen
Date: September 05, 2008 10:16AM
Put it on video MacMagus.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: x-uri
Date: September 05, 2008 10:32AM
Quote
Markiscool
As for "proving", I think what is being sought is what pops into people's heads without them analyzing it. "First Impression" type responses.

What?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Janit
Date: September 05, 2008 11:02AM
Quote
Markiscool

4. What is the most important TENANT of your religion?

The word you want here is tenet (unless the religion is also a landlord).
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: x-uri
Date: September 05, 2008 11:19AM
Oh, and you should probably be collecting something like this from your interview subjects

[www.mediacollege.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Article Accelerator
Date: September 05, 2008 11:35AM
Quote
Markiscool
Hi folks. I got recruited (ok, I offered) to produce a few videos for my church. Interview style stuff. It is for a sermon series titled "I Want to Believe". A sample question would be "What has science proven?"

I can give you a lecture on that: Science has proven nothing. That isn't Science's objective. Science seeks only to reduce uncertainty. It does so by using The Scientific Method. Scientific theories remain theories forever, i.e. a theory is never "proven"--it is, however, forever subject to disproof.

Hope this helps.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 01:34PM by Article Accelerator.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: trisho.
Date: September 05, 2008 11:56AM
What a way to kill a nice invitation for a project, some of you. I'm not much a religion person either but just because someone still believes in a Christian God doesn't mean you have to get super snarky and condescending about it.



trisho.
----------------
Official Card-Carrying Mother Earthin' Sl*t.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Black Landlord
Date: September 05, 2008 02:48PM
For god's sake, people, just shut up and help the poor guy!
Options:  Reply • Quote
If only you believe like I believe...
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: September 05, 2008 03:00PM
...we'd get by.


...but just because someone still believes in a Christian God doesn't mean you have to get super snarky and condescending about it.

Absolutely true, but you'll never convince the offenders of that.

And trisho, I think you're being generous in your own right leaving it at "super snarky and condescending".

I think a few of the responses qualify for Official Card-Carrying @#$%&. And yes, I know that may give AHs a bad name.

The request was certainly innocuous enough, and it's not as though Mic has gone out of his way to inflict any personal beliefs on anyone.

Good luck with your project, Mic.






I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Rolando
Date: September 05, 2008 03:51PM
I suggest this as a practicing believer

[www.npr.org]
[www.npr.org]
and


[www.npr.org]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: kj
Date: September 05, 2008 04:09PM
Quote
x-uri
An interesting list of questions.

The qualifier "absolutely" in question 3 is meaningless. A hypothesis may be proven, unproven, or disproved. There are not degrees of "proveness". FWIW -- excluding purely mathematical propositions -- science has proven everything that is proven. By definition, a hypothesis that does not satisfy the conditions of scientific proof, falls into one of the other two categories

Question 5 is weird. The existence of religion may be proof of something, but religion itself is not in the business of proving things. Quite the reverse, in fact -- religious faith is belief in the absence of proof.

Throw away questions 3 and 5, and this might be an interesting exercise for your congregation. While "man on the street" interviews are statistically meaningless and intellectually lazy, there may be some value in hearing what a person from a different religious tradition from your own imagines hell to be like, or how the religious laity answer questions about "suffering"?


He's not trying to do science. He wants to hear what people have to say, and I would think it will be viewed from a spiritual point of view, not as a documentary about science. I don't think he's looking for the "real" answers, from a scientific pov, or he'd use quotes from a philosophy of science text, etc.

As far as participating, I'm too big of a wuss to do something like that. Scary! kj.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: x-uri
Date: September 05, 2008 07:31PM
Quote
Article Accelerator
I can give you a lecture on that: Science has proven nothing. That isn't Science's objective. Science seeks only to reduce incertainty. It does so by using The Scientific Method. Scientific theories remain theories forever, i.e. a theory is never "proven"--it is, however, forever subject to disproof.

Hope this helps.

Close, but no Kewpie. Science proves things all the time. Scientific proof does not, however, convert assertions into the kind of eternal verities in which religion traffics.

Also, scientists use the word "theory" to mean a framework for understanding observed phenomena in terms of other observed phenomena. Theories are constructed from facts (data) and testable hypotheses and the occasional currently-untestable-but-never-seen-to-have-been-violated "scientific law". If we have a scientific theory that explains a phenomenon, then we may be said to know what causes that phenomenon.

While it is true that the practice of science is mainly concerned with trying to refute the hypotheses upon which a prevailing theory is built, when a test confirms one of those hypotheses it is entirely proper to say that it has been "proved" (within the limits of the experiment or observation).

As for whether Markiscool was subjected to an undue amount of snark, I don't think so. The "sample" question may have been poorly chosen, but it was provocative.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Markiscool
Date: September 05, 2008 07:36PM
Thanks folks. I just finished the project. I didn't get to use any from my friends here, but at least it opened a dialogue down a path we rarely go in this setting. Thanks for the interesting reading today folks.

-M
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: September 05, 2008 09:39PM
Quote
x-uri
Quote
Article Accelerator
I can give you a lecture on that: Science has proven nothing. That isn't Science's objective...

Close, but no Kewpie. Science proves things all the time...

The question referred to absolute proof. Show me where any scientist alleges that he has proof of anything absolute (perfect, complete, pure, not subject to any law, existing whole and of itself with no other influence and beyond the ken of man).

The concept is self-contradicting.

I suggest that anyone who makes such an allegation is not practicing science.

Moreover, phrasing the question that way betrays either ignorance of the subject or a deliberate intent to taint the answer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: x-uri
Date: September 06, 2008 12:01AM
Quote
MacMagus
Quote
x-uri
Quote
Article Accelerator
I can give you a lecture on that: Science has proven nothing. That isn't Science's objective...

Close, but no Kewpie. Science proves things all the time...

The question referred to absolute proof. Show me where any scientist alleges that he has proof of anything absolute (perfect, complete, pure, not subject to any law, existing whole and of itself with no other influence and beyond the ken of man).

The concept is self-contradicting...

1 - if you read the portion of my post elided in your quotation, you will see that I was taking issue with Article Accelerator's assertion "Science has proven nothing."

Further, if you read the second sentence of my response to Article Accelerator you will see that I draw a bright line between scientific proof and the "immutable truths" alleged to be transmitted by religion.

2 - If you scroll up from your response Markiscool, you will see that I objected to the insertion of "absolutely" in his question about what science has proven.

I agree that Markiscool's question appeared tendencious -- but both you and, to a much greater extent, Article Accelerator are predicting your responses upon the same misaprehension about the nature of science that motivated MIC to insert that qualifier between the words "science" and "proven".

The idea of falsifiability is built into a scientific proof, true. However, while every hypothesis is subject to scrutiny and refutation, there are things -- like the heliocentric model of the solar system, or speciation by natural selection, or the germ theory of disease -- which have been proved. It is possible to refute any of these, but they are -- nonetheless -- true.

That is to say, you will not find an astronomer who questions the heliocentric model; unless and until a repeatable observation is made which indicates that earth does not go around the Sun. Absent such an observation, and with an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, the orbit of the earth around the Sun is proven.

To a religious person, the possibility that the model might be scrapped in the face of nonconforming data, makes it seem like heliocentrism is just an opinion or a guess -- leading to the common confusion about "theories" and "facts" and "teach the controversy" bullsh!t.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Article Accelerator
Date: September 06, 2008 12:44AM
Quote
x-uri
you will not find an astronomer who questions the heliocentric model

Is the heliocentric model of the solar system an observation or a theory? I maintain it's the former and therefore not a suitable example to support your statements regarding 'scientific proof.'
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: trisho.
Date: September 06, 2008 01:52AM
Wow.



trisho.
----------------
Official Card-Carrying Mother Earthin' Sl*t.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: x-uri
Date: September 06, 2008 07:51AM
Quote
Article Accelerator
Is the heliocentric model of the solar system an observation or a theory?'

It is neither.

It is a hypothesis, supported by many observations (the apparent retrograde motion of the planets through the earth's sky, stellar parallax, the fact that our spacecraft end up going where we send them a fair fraction of the time, etc.).

The operative theory, within which which the heliocentric model is understood, is celestial mechanics.

It is a common enough confusion, and one which persists even in the language of science (for example, the pathogenic hypothesis is referred to -- for historical reasons and because biologists are just generally sloppy and imprecise about everything -- as the "germ theory of disease").

A theory is not a conjecture. A theory is a system of statements that explains an observable phenomenon in terms of other observable phenomena in a way that allows for testable predictions.

The elements of a theory are observations, testable hypotheses, and physical laws.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Article Accelerator
Date: September 06, 2008 11:43AM
Quote
x-uri
Quote
Article Accelerator
Is the heliocentric model of the solar system an observation or a theory?'

It is neither.

It is a hypothesis, supported by many observations (the apparent retrograde motion of the planets through the earth's sky, stellar parallax, the fact that our spacecraft end up going where we send them a fair fraction of the time, etc.).

The operative theory, within which which the heliocentric model is understood, is celestial mechanics.

It seems to me that you are diverting.

In any case, we're on the same side here. Thanks for the discussion and elucidation.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: wurm
Date: September 06, 2008 09:26PM
Quote
trisho.
Wow.

What she said.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: September 06, 2008 09:59PM
> I agree that Markiscool's question appeared tendencious -- but
> both you and, to a much greater extent, Article Accelerator are
> predicting your responses upon the same misaprehension about
> the nature of science that motivated MIC to insert that qualifier
> between the words "science" and "proven".

Not so. You're arbitrarily removing the "absolute" from the question and contextually from our responses.

The issue that I addressed was whether a scientific proof could be "absolute." I say -- and I think you'll agree -- that such a concept is nonsensical. Proofs establish facts. The absolute is not factual. It is ineffable and therefore outside the realm of science.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: x-uri
Date: September 07, 2008 11:43AM
Macmagus, I did not "arbitrarily" remove anything.

I dispensed with Markiscool's use of the word "absolute " t by pointing out that -- for a scientist -- things may be proven, unproven, or disproved. That saying something is "absolutely proved" is meaningless.

My issue with Article Accelerator was the assertion that science has "proven nothing". An error compounded by the colloquial use of the word "theory" to mean something like an incomplete fact, or a provisional explanation. Article Accelerator's response did not mention the word "absolute", and so I did not address the question of "absoluteness" in my objection.

As to that assertion, I refute it (again) thus:

If I wanted to prove that an antibiotic was effective against a certain strain of bacteria, I would conduct a series of experiments which isolated the effect of the antibiotic from all other causes of excess mortality in my cultures. If the experiment was well-designed and executed, I could state with certainty whether the drug had any effect. Will I not, then, have proven something about the efficacy of that antibiotic?

Regarding your response to the original post:

Scientists tend not to use the word "proof" for a couple of reasons.

Mostly because, for experimentalists at any rate, a confirmed hypothesis rarely meets the tests of rigor for a mathematical proof.

Also, it is a problematic word when talking to non-scientists, unacquainted with the scientific method and confused about what scientists actually do.

Your equivocation about scientists not "deal[ing] in absolutes" is correct, I suppose, but it falls into the trap set by the questioner. It concedes the premise that there is a hierarchy of knowledge, with some kind of irrefutable and eternal truth at its apex.

In context, it is apparent that the questioner wants a response about the disagreement between the biblical creation story and scientific reckoning on topics like the age of the earth, the origin of species, etc. The insertion of the word "absolute" was intended to elicit exactly the response Article Accelerator gave; that answers obtained by application of the scientific method are, by definition, falsifiable from which the questioner can then infer that such answers are -- some way -- unreliable.

There is a fundamental disconnect between science and superstition. For a believer, all provisional answers -- no matter what evidence there may be to support or refute any of them -- are equally likely to be true.

It isn't that the "absolute is not factual" (whatever that means). It is that the scientific standard of proof is that all of the observables are controlled and accounted for. If so, then a hypothesis may be proved or disproved. If not, then the hypothesis remains unproven. There is, for a scientist, no intermediate category, nor is there a "super proof" which converts a hypothesis into dogma.

What the questioner wanted, and what you provided, was not a list of every confirmed hypothesis since the stone age, nor an erudite disquisition on the epistemology of science, but a sound-bite that might be construed to mean that the imaginary monolithic entity called SCIENCE" cannot state with certainty that the bullsh!t in the Book of Genesis is, in fact, bullsh!t.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: September 07, 2008 08:33PM
Quote

It isn't that the "absolute is not factual"

Yes it is. Things that are absolute are not falsifiable. Facts are falsifiable. That which is absolute is not factual.

(Socrates is a man.)


Quote

Your equivocation about scientists not "deal[ing] in absolutes" is correct, I suppose, but it falls into the trap set by the questioner. It concedes the premise that there is a hierarchy of knowledge, with some kind of irrefutable and eternal truth at its apex.

1. It concedes nothing of the sort; and

2. I easily concede this point: There may be an absolute principle.

To fail to concede such a point is arrogance, not science.

(Not all geese are white.)


Quote

What the questioner wanted, and what you provided, was not a list of every confirmed hypothesis since the stone age, nor an erudite disquisition on the epistemology of science, but a sound-bite that might be construed to mean that the imaginary monolithic entity called SCIENCE" cannot state with certainty that the bullsh!t in the Book of Genesis is, in fact, bullsh!t.

If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge any value at all in biblical stories, that is kind of sad.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Article Accelerator
Date: September 07, 2008 11:52PM
Quote
x-uri
My issue with Article Accelerator was the assertion that science has "proven nothing". An error compounded by the colloquial use of the word "theory" to mean something like an incomplete fact, or a provisional explanation.

I did not use the word "theory" colloquially.

Quote

Scientists tend not to use the word "proof" for a couple of reasons.

Mostly because, for experimentalists at any rate, a confirmed hypothesis rarely meets the tests of rigor for a mathematical proof.

Bingo. Now we're starting to talk the same language.

Quote

Also, it is a problematic word when talking to non-scientists, unacquainted with the scientific method and confused about what scientists actually do.

Exactly. That is something that irks me greatly.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: x-uri
Date: September 08, 2008 11:46AM
Quote
MacMagus

If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge any value at all in biblical stories, that is kind of sad.

Yeah -- because that is exactly what I meant.

Quote
Article Accelerator
I did not use the word "theory" colloquially.

In two separate posts, actually. Its really not that big a deal Even scientists tend to be casual with the words "theory" and "hypothesis", except when discussing the philosophy of science, or getting all pedantic with a creationist or a global warming denier (for example). There are idioms which depend upon the colloquial use of the word theory and -- in informal communication -- the idiomatic/non-scientific use communicates something meaningful.

It was the fact that you used "theory" in the colloquial sense right after asserting something fundamentally untrue about science, that got my attention.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: September 08, 2008 12:40PM
> Yeah -- because that is exactly what I meant.

Oh, did I misread the expression on your face while you were typing?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: x-uri
Date: September 08, 2008 05:09PM
Quote
MacMagus

Oh, did I misread the expression on your face while you were typing?

Well, you misread everything else.

You missed, or misunderstood, my criticism of Markiscool's use of "absolute proof".

You misread Article Accelerator's post -- imagining a reference to the word "absolute" which was neither explicit, nor implied.

And you finish by deciding that my description of the Bullsh!t content of the Book of Genesis, at the end of a post in which I explicitly refer to the differences between the scientific evidence and biblical account of creation, was a blanket dismissal of the Bible as a work of literature.

Along the way, you imposed the condition of falsifiability on things to be considered "facts" -- which I am pretty sure is wrong. Statements of fact may be falsifiable, but the facts themselves?

"That swan is not white."

If the swan is purple, is it possible to make an observation that falsifies the fact of its non-whiteness?

Since you've managed to lose an argument with someone who is in agreement with your position, I will retire from the thread let you have the last word.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: September 08, 2008 07:45PM
> Statements of fact may be falsifiable, but the facts themselves?

You've made a fundamental mistake in reasoning.

The only way for a fact not to be falsifiable would be if it were a priori.

That would be outside of the realm of science.

Any "fact" of science is falsifiable, by definition. Anyone versed in science should know this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2008 07:51PM by MacMagus.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: Article Accelerator
Date: September 09, 2008 12:54AM
Quote
x-uri
Quote
Article Accelerator
I did not use the word "theory" colloquially.

It was the fact that you used "theory" in the colloquial sense right after asserting something fundamentally untrue about science, that got my attention.

WTF? I wish I had left this alone...

You are wrong on both counts. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: What do you believe?
Posted by: trisho.
Date: September 09, 2008 10:28AM
You schmoes are still debating this ish?



trisho.
----------------
Official Card-Carrying Mother Earthin' Sl*t.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 42
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020