science as a religion

[Jeremy Taylor]

Quite ridiculous. Its even hypocritical. Your only alive because of science and its ability to help evolve foods into mass production, as well as the CDC and disease control.

You don't survive without science

I thrive without religion.

Everything you write is a compound of nonsense and fallacies.

Firstly, this hypostatisation of science you refer to would still require philosophy.

Secondly, we are not discussing religion but the limits of science. It doesn't follow from the fact that natural science is not an exhaustive means of knowledge that religion must supply the rest, or that if religion gives us no proper knowledge, then it all must be scientific knowledge instead.

 

[outhouse]

we are not discussing religion but the limits of science.

Yes we are discussing the limits of religion because your trying to replace facts with mythology.

that religion must supply the rest

No mythology replaces anything with credibility. Your sorely mistaken if you think religion in any way adds to science. It is factual theology that used mythology and was never intended to be used to PERVERT science or fill in any gaps of knowledge.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I'm not sure your not, your attacking academia and science making one unsubstantiated rhetorical claim after the other.

Would you care to answer my actual point then?

Does science rely on logic?

Does science rely on an understanding of causality, an understanding of the nature of the universals it speaks of (electrons, quarks, etc) and how they exist or are instantiated, and a understanding of the degree to which it describes objective reality (realism, anti-realism, etc) that is not scientific but ultimately philosophical? If these are not philosophical, can you show how they are not?

Does science not also rely on mathematics?

 

[outhouse]

Everything you write is a compound of nonsense and fallacies.

Once you start using credible sources to substantiate you personal biased attacks on academia and science, you will not gain an ounce of traction in these threads.

You have to understand when YOU attack credible education and science, you have lost all credibility and personal opinion is free cheap and worthless in any debate

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Yes we are discussing the limits of religion because your trying to replace facts with mythology.



No mythology replaces anything with credibility. Your sorely mistaken if you think religion in any way adds to science. It is factual theology that used mythology and was never intended to be used to PERVERT science or fill in any gaps of knowledge.

You are a rank sophist.

 

[outhouse]

Does science rely on logic?

Does science not also rely on mathematics?

Yes to both.


Unlike religion that does not always use either.

 

[outhouse]

You are a rank sophist.

That's debatable.

But I have academia and science and education and knowledge on my side.

Not imagination and mythology. Bud ive seen hundreds like you in the years, and they always stomp away mad because no one believes their personal faith in any scientific application.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Yes to both.


Unlike religion that does not always use either.

But that is the point. These are not scientific. It has nothing to do with religion. You don't even seem capable of following a basic argument, yet no doubt you look down your nose at the intellectual capacities or the religious.

 

[outhouse]

yet no doubt you look down your nose at the intellectual capacities or the religious.

Which is false. I teach religion

My best friends are religious, unlike you they know better then to fight academia and science and education and knowledge, they actually embrace this.

 

[outhouse]

But that is the point. These are not scientific.

Says you.

Bud, stop with the opinion, you have NO credibility here. start to PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES.

Go out and find a source that backs your statement that math and logic are not scientific.

 

[outhouse]

look down your nose at the intellectual capacities or the religious.

For some religious people, yes I'm guilty. All YEC fit in this group, and most of all islam as well. Those who choose fanaticism and fundamentalism are people who refuse certain aspect of academia.

If you fit that group, its your own fault for not understanding what and why academia teaches what it does.

 

[outhouse]

You are a rank sophist.

loosing your cool in a debate is a sign of desperation.

Please use credible source to support your opinion. Opinion is free cheap and often worthless.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Do you know what natural science is and what mathematics and logic are? I am not saying natural science does not use these. What I am saying is that natural science, being the study of quantifiably measurable empirical phenomena is not the same thing as logic, which is philosophy (you will find it taught not in science but in philosophy) and is the codification of reasoning qua reasoning, and mathematics, which is the study of quantity in itself and not in relations, necessarily, to the empirical world. One can simply stretch the definition of science to cover these, but this trivialises the claim science explains all reality, and doesn't change the fact there is still a distinction between natural science and these disciplines.

Besides, you ignored the even more obviously philosophical framework science requires, which I mentioned.

 

[outhouse]

Provide sources.


Your highly educated, and I'm guessing young to boot. But good education out of context is more harmful then none.


All I have ever done is tried to get you to substantiate your claims.


Philosophy has its place, but you cannot wear philosophical lens for every word written or spoken. Or nothing ever gets done.


Ive seen so many people in the philosophy class I lecture in, completely ruin the topics they attack from ignorance. Are you guilty of this? I wont judge it, so start using credible sources and don't leave us guessing.

 

[outhouse]

Unless we just extend the meaning of the term science, and make the claim it explains all trivial, it cannot therefore explain all reality.

Rhetoric based on lack of understanding of what science actually does


No where in does science say its job is to explain all reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Quit adlibbing the definition

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I have no idea what you are babbling about? I am making a basic point based upon the uncontroversial definitions and concepts involved in these disciplines. I don't require sources to back up my point. It is a matter of simple common knowledge, reasoning, and analysis. If you think I am mischaracterising science or logic and mathematics, you are free to point this out in a specific and meaningful way.

Have you ever considered purchasing a work on introductory logic or critical thinking? It might help with your seeming inability to understand basic argumentation and reasoning.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Rhetoric based on lack of understanding of what science actually does


No where in does science say its job is to explain all reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Quit adlibbing the definition

You seem unable to follow a basic argument. This discussion arose in response to another poster who said we shouldn't rule out science in the future explaining all of reality. I was simply pointing out reasons why we know it can't - it obviously isn't our only source of knowledge or field of inquiry. You now seem to be agreeing with me that science is not the means to explain all reality. In fact, it seems you just vaguely see that I am criticising scientism and you are spraying forth bilge and nonsense in the hope of deflecting from that.

 

[outhouse]

Ive seen first year psychology students who think they have the whole world figured out.

Substantiate your claims with credible sources, yes you do need to. No one gets free ride.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You are a sophist and a troll and, as I have said, it is useless to argue with you. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[outhouse]

.

You are a sophist .

That's debatable.

Go out and find a source that backs your statement that math and logic are not scientific.