Global Skeptic
King
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 618
Any of you ever heard of the demarcation line between science and religion or rather demarcation problem; i.e. what is science and what is non-science?
It has nothing to do science and religion, rather it has to with objective and subjective.
So relevant to this thread, here is an example:
Person A: I know that the theory of evolution is a fact.
Person B: I know that the Biblical Creation is a fact.
This first one is objective, the second one is subjective.
Now another example, now as a deduction:
Premise 1: "Person A: I know that the theory of evolution is a fact."
Premise 2: "Person B: I know that the Biblical Creation is a fact."
Conclusion/therefore: Person B is wrong.
That is both science(Person A), non-science(Person B) and philosophy - and the conclusion is not valid as deductive logic goes.
Is the key here the "I know" part? Would things change if we change the premises to:
Person A: I know that the theory of evolution is a fact.
Person B: I know that the Biblical Creation is a fact.
This first one is still objective, the second one is still subjective.
Premise 1: "Person A: The theory of evolution is a fact."
Premise 2: "Person B: The Biblical Creation is a fact."
Are both statements now drawn into the objective sphere by excluding the possibly subjective knowledge part?
Yes and no to the "I know", in so far as we have to exclude solipsism and brains in vat, and then if we both accept that a part of reality is objective, we can get to that
the theory of evolution is a fact and Biblical Creation is not a fact. But as to:
Premise 1: "Person A: The theory of evolution is a fact."
Premise 2: "Person B: The Biblical Creation is a fact."
Conclusion/therefore: Person B is wrong.
This still holds - That is both science(Person A), non-science(Person B) and philosophy - and the conclusion is not valid as deductive logic goes.
In other words - if we accept a part of reality is objective, then A's claim is true(philosophy)/a fact(science), B's is false/non-science and the conclusion/therefore is not valid(philosophy) and false/non-science.
So words overlap between science and philosophy, notably knowledge and false, but in general true belongs to logic and philosophy in the broader sense. So science has nothing to do with truth. Truth is a "cat-fight" within philosophy and religion.