ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[Azrael Antilla]

Yeah, you can find it yourself. Just Google Karl Popper and understand what source to use. I found it. Now I am testing you.

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

The best method our irrational species of animals with limited cognitive capacity, incomplete information and inbuilt biases has ≠ flawless, objective

Not rocket science.

It is objective. Obviously. Since the scientific method is an objective methodology of investigation.

You're so full of crap. It's baffling. The method is flawless, even if the data isnt. Unless of course you think it can be improved somehow? Maybe psi powers?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, you just failed the most basic test. You don't know the relationship between Karl Popper, induction and science.
Okay, here you are.
Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Now find it yourself. I have given you enough help as it stands.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Yeah, you just failed the most basic test. You don't know the relationship between Karl Popper, induction and science.
Okay, here you are.
Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Now find it yourself. I have given you enough help as it stands.

Oh please. Shut up.

 

[Rival]

This debate is so RFian.

'Do ISIS and the Taliban represent true Islam?'

'Yes.'

'No.'

'This is anti-science.'

 

[Azrael Antilla]

This debate is so RFian.

'Do ISIS and the Taliban represent true Islam?'

'Yes.'

'No.'

'This is anti-science.'

Well I didn't ask for an argument but if you're looking for trouble, then you've found it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh please. Shut up.

So you couldn't do it. Yeah, that is no surprise.
Here is the relevant piece of text:

3. The Problem of Demarcation
For Popper the central problem in the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, i.e., of distinguishing between science and what he terms “non-science” (e.g., logic, metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and Adler’s individual psychology). Popper is unusual amongst contemporary philosophers in that he accepts the validity of the Humean critique of induction, and indeed, goes beyond it in arguing that induction is never actually used in science. However, he does not concede that this entails scepticism and argues that the Baconian/Newtonian insistence on the primacy of “pure” observation, as the initial step in the formation of theories, is completely misguided: all observation is selective and theory-laden and there are no pure or theory-free observations. In this way he destabilises the traditional view that science can be distinguished from non-science on the basis of its inductive methodology. In contradistinction to this, Popper holds that there is no unique methodology specific to science; rather, science, like virtually every other organic activity, consists largely of problem-solving.
...
Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Azrael Antilla]

So you couldn't do it. Yeah, that is no surprise.
Here is the relevant piece of text:

3. The Problem of Demarcation
For Popper the central problem in the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, i.e., of distinguishing between science and what he terms “non-science” (e.g., logic, metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and Adler’s individual psychology). Popper is unusual amongst contemporary philosophers in that he accepts the validity of the Humean critique of induction, and indeed, goes beyond it in arguing that induction is never actually used in science. However, he does not concede that this entails scepticism and argues that the Baconian/Newtonian insistence on the primacy of “pure” observation, as the initial step in the formation of theories, is completely misguided: all observation is selective and theory-laden and there are no pure or theory-free observations. In this way he destabilises the traditional view that science can be distinguished from non-science on the basis of its inductive methodology. In contradistinction to this, Popper holds that there is no unique methodology specific to science; rather, science, like virtually every other organic activity, consists largely of problem-solving.
...
Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I can straighten that right out for you.

Metaphysical questions can only be answered with untestable hypothesis.

Scientific questions can be answered with testable hypothesis, supported by empirically derived evidence.

To produce the scientific theory.

X

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can straighten that right out for you.

Metaphysical questions can only be answered with untestable hypothesis.

Scientific questions can be answered with testable hypothesis, supported by empirically derived evidence.

To produce the scientific theory.

X

You do know how Karl Popper is, right? And his relationship to the concept of falsifiable?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I can straighten that right out for you.

Metaphysical questions can only be answered with untestable hypothesis.

Scientific questions can be answered with testable hypothesis, supported by empirically derived evidence.

To produce the scientific theory.

X

For ****ing example. The question about the conditions that existed prior to the big bang. Are metaphysical. Thus can only be answered with untestable hypothesis. Because. My dears. The laws of physics breakdown at that point. We cannot apply the scientific method of investigation!

 

[Azrael Antilla]

You do know how Karl Popper is, right? And his relationship to the concept of falsifiable?

Ifgaf who he is. I didn't study philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For ****ing example. The question about the conditions that existed prior to the big bang. Are metaphysical. Thus can only be answered with untestable hypothesis. Because. My dears. The laws of physics breakdown at that point. We cannot apply the scientific method of investigation!

What are you talking about?
I am talking about falsifiable, induction and Karl Popper in relationship to the method of science.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

What are you talking about?
I am talking about falsifiable, induction and Karl Popper in relationship to the method of science.

Your quote referred to demarcation. Distinguishing the metaphysical from the scientific?

Oh who cares?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ifgaf who he is. I didn't study philosophy.

He is the guy that you refer to when you claim that science needs to be falsifiable. He developed that method. And he had something to say about induction. I gave you a reference.
Here is some more:
"Popper accordingly rejects the view that induction is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, substituting falsifiability in its place. It is easy, he argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such “corroboration”, as he terms it, should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely “risky” prediction, which might conceivably have been false. In a critical sense, Popper’s theory of demarcation is based upon his perception of the asymmetry which, at the level of logic, holds between verification and falsification: it is logically impossible to verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single genuine counter-instance falsifies the corresponding universal law. In a word, an exception, far from “proving” a rule, conclusively refutes it."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your quote referred to demarcation. Distinguishing the metaphysical from the scientific?

Oh who cares?

You didn't even read on, did you?

 

[KWED]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

**mod edit**
It isn't an appeal to authority. It's called "deferring to authority". It is both a common and legitimate practice in medicine, academia, science and pretty much everything. Hell, Islam itself fundamentally depends on it!
What are so many apologists so unable to correctly use informal fallacies?

Find a flaw in a scholars writings, and argue it must be true.

What are you on about. I merely pointed out the consensus amongst authoritative scholars that the passage is referring to women too young to have started menstruation.
I understand that you don't like the idea, and why you don't like it, but "I don't like it" is not a legitimate argument.
However, if you can find four similarly heavyweight scholars who explicitly state that it is not referring to those too young to have started menstruation, I will obviously change my position.

 

[KWED]

I personally think we need to know what “true”Islam Is to make a comparison imo.

"True Islam" is what is contained in the Quran and sunnah. The problem is that no one can agree what they really say.

 

[stevecanuck]

Whenever science is introduced to a thread about religion, it is by definition off topic, and inevitably hijacks the thread, as it has done here.

 

[stevecanuck]

"True Islam" is what is contained in the Quran and sunnah. The problem is that no one can agree what they really say.

To me, "true Islam" is what its creator, Mohamed, meant it to be. And that's the Qur'an only. He made no allowance for anything else to be considered. Everything that's not the Qur'an came after his death, and is therefore an add-on. That's why 99% of my reading has been the Qur'an.

That's not to say I discount hadiths out of hand as being wrong. In fact they add insight when paired with Qur'anic verses. However, that doesn't change the fact that Mohamed never intended them to be written and studied. If he had, he would have said so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As usual, some ad hominem when confronted with the fact that, you are an apologist, with absolutely no knowledge on the subject.

You should learn what an "ad hominem" is.