nPeace
Veteran Member
In doing some research, I came across this article. and to be honest, it instantly set me thinking about how men look at science. Do they really take into account its limitations?
Not focusing on the fact that absence of evidence, does not mean scientific evidence...
For example, saying that there is no evidence for a big boat with eight people being carried through the waters of a worldwide flood, is not scientific evidence. Nor is saying that, there is no evidence Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago, scientific evidence. Discovering that a Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago as was, claimed by a document, would be scientific evidence.
What I want to focus on is the limits of science to confirm, verify, or refute a source.
So back to the article The earthquake in the days of Uzziah
Is it necessarily the case that Josephus' story is wrong, or could it be right (not saying it is)?
In otter words, could there have been an earthquake, at the time Josephus said, and one after, at the time scientists calculated, so that two quakes occurred within a two year period? How would scientists know whether a quake occurred shortly before the one they calculated?
Or, should we assume the source would mention two, if they actually were, within a two year period? Could the source have referred to just one - the one personally witnessed, and not referred to the other?
Not focusing on the fact that absence of evidence, does not mean scientific evidence...
For example, saying that there is no evidence for a big boat with eight people being carried through the waters of a worldwide flood, is not scientific evidence. Nor is saying that, there is no evidence Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago, scientific evidence. Discovering that a Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago as was, claimed by a document, would be scientific evidence.
What I want to focus on is the limits of science to confirm, verify, or refute a source.
So back to the article The earthquake in the days of Uzziah
Is it necessarily the case that Josephus' story is wrong, or could it be right (not saying it is)?
In otter words, could there have been an earthquake, at the time Josephus said, and one after, at the time scientists calculated, so that two quakes occurred within a two year period? How would scientists know whether a quake occurred shortly before the one they calculated?
Or, should we assume the source would mention two, if they actually were, within a two year period? Could the source have referred to just one - the one personally witnessed, and not referred to the other?