mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, I need to apologize to you. You are right. I back tracked the thread and I agree with you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
Well, I need to apologize to you. You are right. I back tracked the thread and I agree with you.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I get that but it would be easier to have a yardstick then the answer would be simple.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Haha. A nice cup of coffee sometimes is true religion. So is good company. Its subjective.
Augustus
…
You started with an egregious misrepresentation of what I said based on a post you admitted you hadn't even read.
Why should I think you are an honest broker interested in good faith discussion rather than a clown?
Hehe the absolute clincher of cognitive dissonance
A rationalist dismissing the very concept of providing scholarly evidence in support of a claim.
Even fundies have the intellectual honesty to make **** arguments against the scholarship that shows them to be wrong, it's only "rationalists" on RF who have to dismiss actually being ables to cite academic sources in support of your position as"copy/paste" and thus invalid. It's actually called quotation and is a standard part of academic discourse buttercup
Usually, being able to refer to diverse sources beyond wikipedia and the first page of google is actually seen as evidence you have bothered to research before opining on an issue.
The "rationalist", who personally understands they have read nothing substantial on the topic, still has to pretend they are being rational in dismissing scholarship out of hand though. If you can't argue against it just disparage reading and evidence itself.
"The Nobel Prize winning physicist you quoted obviously knows less than me about science. He obviously doesn't have a modicum of understanding about the scientific method and its practical and theoretical applications"
"I have repeatedly said you are wrong without argument or evidence in response to your peer reviewed scholarship. I have thus handed you your *** with my immense rationalism. Have at ye varlet!"
Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia
Cheerio
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
I understand what you say. But that just simply takes the whole thing away. Let it be.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
There is no objective yardstick, because it is subjective interpretation.
firedragon
Veteran Member
The problem with making that kind of statement is, its just an assertion, and a generalisation, nothing specific, with no study of anything.
With all due respect, its like a one shoe fits all kind of solution you are giving. Its a nice idea, and if researched and studied, there is a lot of truth in it. But its not absolute. You are making subjectivity an objective truth. You have to prove that, with true, well defined, well researched, assumptions.
Hope you understand.
So the Taliban and isis are true Islam or not but without a yardstick I have no comment.
Augustus
…
AFAIK, the Newtonian theory of gravity and Newtonian physics are wrong (at least to the extent they are not entirely correct, they are correct enough to still have practical values).
Just as well they were never considered science in the first place though and "science" is still batting 100%.
"Science" can't be wrong after all. Saying so would be ridiculous and intellectually cowardly anti-science.
It's almost as ridiculous as thinking social scientists 150 years ago could have been wrong about something. We certainly know that modern social science is never wrong about anything after all and anyone who says otherwise is an imbecile who doesn't understand the scientific method.
#scientificfactz
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, and I have good news in regards to my wife. So now I have time. So are you still game to do subjectivity and objectivity?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Its like this. One cannot refute that there are yardsticks. But the problem is, just like anyone who make general comments to dismiss it, there will be general comments with no study. Thats the problem. That is why, it is more important to let those who make the proposition in the OP to come up with their evidence for their proposition.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, not to me and nor are they false. But i am a limited cognitive relativist.
There is only One True Science and It is never wrong.
All the other are just idolatrous science led by lying demons.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats the best news I heard in a very very long time. I have no words to say. Maybe I will actually have that coffee and rejoice.
Discussions later. I shall shut up now.
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
[
A scientific theory. Is not absolute truth. In reality it's the mathematical model we have that best fits observation and experiment. That makes the most accurate predictions.
Special relativity for example provides a more accurate picture of gravity than Newtonian gravity does.
Now. We can still use Newtonian physics to put men on the moon or any other nearby planet or celestial body. However we cannot use it to calculate the orbit of Mercury accurately since its proximity to the sun causes relativistic effects. That only special relativity mathematics can resolve.
It's a matter of resolution or accuracy. The better the data. The better the accuracy. The closer our approximation reflects physical reality.
Of course not. If the scientific method was employed, the aspect of nature being investigated, be it gravity or the photoelectric effect, is still being scientifically investigated.
A scientific theory. Is not absolute truth. In reality it's the mathematical model we have that best fits observation and experiment. That makes the most accurate predictions.
Special relativity for example provides a more accurate picture of gravity than Newtonian gravity does.
Now. We can still use Newtonian physics to put men on the moon or any other nearby planet or celestial body. However we cannot use it to calculate the orbit of Mercury accurately since its proximity to the sun causes relativistic effects. That only special relativity mathematics can resolve.
It's a matter of resolution or accuracy. The better the data. The better the accuracy. The closer our approximation reflects physical reality.
So why are you arguing that Social Darwinism, scientific racialism etc. were never science, when, according to your own argument above, it was and is?
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
There is only the scientific method. Which is set in stone. Nothing nebulous or ambiguous about it.
But Augustus just pointed out that even scientists repudiate that there is one such method.
Most of science is tinkering and seeing what works, really; a lot of it is blind.
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
Because social Darwinism is not a testable empirically evidenced scientific theory. It is not a science. It is a pseudoscientific attempt to justify unscientific notions of racial supremacy. Et al. You need to understand. That science is the scientific method. Not populist bull****.