Evolution versus Creationism

[Perfection]

Well yes, but I was extrapolating.

In a mathematical sense if science is a function F(t, m, p) where t = time, m = money and p = people available and F(t,m,p) = x where x is a number between 0 and 1 that determines how close to the truth you are where 0 is utterly false and 1 is utterly true then as t->infinity, F tends to 1.

While religion is a funtion R(b) where b = what certain books say then R(b) = #
where # is some random constant between 0 and 1.

Well how about we just say science is progressive without making up stupid conjectures about what it's going to approach given infinite time.

True unless m or p are 0, so we need to keep going if we want to get anywhere.

How the poop do you know that?

Maybe there are truths inaccessible to science.

 

[Birdjaguar]

In science, something is true if assuming it's true gets you somewhere. In religion, if it gets you anywhere, it's not true

I rest my case.

You assume that "getting somewhere" is real progress or improvement. I am not sure that can be shown to be true.

 

[Perfection]

You assume that "getting somewhere" is real progress or improvement. I am not sure that can be shown to be true.

Well, I would consider the technologically improved life part of getting somewhere.

You're not seriously denying that science is a progressive field are you?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, if you value happy people, happy people can exist in any technological strata or scientific level. But if you want to maximize the number of happy people, you're going to need science

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, I would consider the technologically improved life part of getting somewhere.

You're not seriously denying that science is a progressive field are you?

Well, if you value happy people, happy people can exist in any technological strata or scientific level. But if you want to maximize the number of happy people, you're going to need science

The ability to do more and make more stuff is not inconsequential and has improved life overall. But giving too much credence to it leads one down a path to a world where plug in connections to our pleasure centers are all that matter. All other old fashioned experiences would pale in comparison and we could maximize the number of happy people.

 

[Flying Pig]

How the poop do you know that?

Maybe there are truths inaccessible to science.

No - 0(x) = 0.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No - 0(x) = 0.

Don't be silly. Science is not that special.

 

[Perfection]

No - 0(x) = 0.

Huh?

Well, if you value happy people, happy people can exist in any technological strata or scientific level. But if you want to maximize the number of happy people, you're going to need science

Personally, I just think that truth is fundamentally good and science is the best way we have at getting at truth.

 

[El_Machinae]

Truth exists with or without science. You mean knowledge?
I think the fundamental goodness of knowledge is subjective.

 

[warpus]

Truth exists with or without science. You mean knowledge?
I think the fundamental goodness of knowledge is subjective.

Truth exists with or without science, but science is the only tool we have that allows as to arrive at this truth efficiently.

 

[Fifty]

Truth exists with or without science, but science is the only tool we have that allows as to arrive at this truth efficiently.

There are lots of truths arrived at in a non-scientific manner.

 

[warpus]

There are lots of truths arrived at in a non-scientific manner.

I mean "truths about reality and the nature of the universe we live in". I don't mean other types of truths, like.. 2+2=4, and "my dog likes me"

 

[Fifty]

I mean "truths about reality and the nature of the universe we live in". I don't mean other types of truths, like.. 2+2=4, and "my dog likes me"

There are still lots of truths about natural reality that aren't arrived at in a scientific manner.

If you keep narrowing "what you mean" until your statement becomes "truths about the object of science can only be arrived at in a scientific manner" then its a pretty pointless statement to make.

 

[Flying Pig]

Name at least one - I can't think of any.

 

[peter grimes]

There are still lots of truths about natural[al] reality that aren't arrived at in a scientific manner

.

Really? I'd also like to know of some.

 

[warpus]

There are still lots of truths about natural reality that aren't arrived at in a scientific manner.

Like what?

If you keep narrowing "what you mean" until your statement becomes "truths about the object of science can only be arrived at in a scientific manner" then its a pretty pointless statement to make.

Well, I mean the truths about how this Universe operates, and I did say "most efficiently" and not "only".

 

[Flying Pig]

There are two sorts of scientific reasoning: deductive and inductive. They are as follows:

Deductive

Begins from a premise (we hold these truths to be self-evident) and reasons with perfect, non-fallacious logic to get to a conclusion which must be true. This one, if contradicted, is still true; for if done properly it cannot be proven wrong,

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is mortal

Inductive

Reasons from experience that something must be true in the next case because it is generally the case, for example:

I have seen 1000 swans
All of them had wings
Therefore, I conclude that all swans have wings

This one can be proven wrong simply by finding a swan with no wings

 

[peter grimes]

[Meteorology is] based, mostly, on statistics from similar weather conditions and models that work...

I don't see why that implies there are truths that can't be found through a scientific inquiry... I understand that statistics isn't as pleasant as a mathematical proof - but from the little I understand, Quantum Mechanics seems to be grounded more in statistics than pure mathematics, and I doubt many people would consider QM a 'natural truth' that was arrived at through some method other than science!

 

[GoodGame]

Statistical observations based on evidence are still science, on the condition that the evidence is gathered scientifically. It'd more fit the inductive model rather than the deductive hypothesis model, is all.

 

[Perfection]

Look guys, can't we just drop this science must know everything crap?

Is it not enough that science is an extremely good methodology for truth finding and progressively builds a better understanding of the world?