"Splitting the baby" as far as I know it, is just a compromise, I don't know of any argument. If I had to guess I would say that conservatives would be more likely to equate the explanatory power of religion and science because conservatives are more than likely religious.

(January 16, 2016 at 9:19 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: "Splitting the baby" as far as I know it, is just a compromise, I don't know of any argument.  If I had to guess I would say that conservatives would be more likely to equate the explanatory power of religion and science because conservatives are more than likely religious.

No it isn't  just a "compromise" it is a cop out. It is coming from a place of empathy yes, but it is still a cop out.

Again, you don't go into finding answers in a scientific setting by assuming fairness, that is a matter of human rights and law, not labs.

The tool of scientific method is not a moral claim or a government law, it is a process. "Splitting the baby" is a result of good intent but still based on bad logic.

Seriously, I think Stenger's book "The New Atheism" will go into much better detail as to what I am trying to tell you here.

(January 16, 2016 at 9:25 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 16, 2016 at 9:19 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: "Splitting the baby" as far as I know it, is just a compromise, I don't know of any argument.  If I had to guess I would say that conservatives would be more likely to equate the explanatory power of religion and science because conservatives are more than likely religious.

No it isn't  just a "compromise" it is a cop out. It is coming from a place of empathy yes, but it is still a cop out.

Again, you don't go into finding answers in a scientific setting by assuming fairness, that is a matter of human rights and law, not labs.

The tool of scientific method is not a moral claim or a government law, it is a process. "Splitting the baby" is a result of good intent but still based on bad logic.

Seriously, I think Stenger's book "The New Atheism" will go into much better detail as to what I am trying to tell you here.

I agree that religious explanations are not science, but that type of claim would likely come from somebody who is religious, liberal or conservative.

(January 16, 2016 at 9:37 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 16, 2016 at 9:25 am)Brian37 Wrote: No it isn't  just a "compromise" it is a cop out. It is coming from a place of empathy yes, but it is still a cop out.

Again, you don't go into finding answers in a scientific setting by assuming fairness, that is a matter of human rights and law, not labs.

The tool of scientific method is not a moral claim or a government law, it is a process. "Splitting the baby" is a result of good intent but still based on bad logic.

Seriously, I think Stenger's book "The New Atheism" will go into much better detail as to what I am trying to tell you here.

I agree that religious explanations are not science, but that type of claim would likely come from somebody who is religious, liberal or conservative.

MOMMY!

Please try to understand.

This is the same mistake in use of logic that allows liberal theists to ignore the fact that both liberals and conservatives are using the same books to come to different conclusions.

I am saying that liberals are making a mistake which allows conservatives to do even worse with their logic. There simply is no good way for anyone to treat the two as equal or separate but equal. Liberals DO allow that cover for bad logic which makes an excuse for a watered down theism which is more civil, but also at the same time gives cover to worse crap like creationism and ID or whichever religion is trying to co opt science. 

Read the book.

(January 16, 2016 at 9:47 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 16, 2016 at 9:37 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: I agree that religious explanations are not science, but that type of claim would likely come from somebody who is religious, liberal or conservative.

MOMMY!

Please try to understand.

This is the same mistake in use of logic that allows liberal theists to ignore the fact that both liberals and conservatives are using the same books to come to different conclusions.

I am saying that liberals are making a mistake which allows conservatives to do even worse with their logic. There simply is no good way for anyone to treat the two as equal or separate but equal. Liberals DO allow that cover for bad logic which makes an excuse for a watered down theism which is more civil, but also at the same time gives cover to worse crap like creationism and ID or whichever religion is trying to co opt science. 

Read the book.

I just don't see where liberals are "splitting the baby" between science and religion. Do we have an example of liberal ideals that specifically equate religion and science?

@OP,

Will the real Shake Your Foundations video please stand up:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bayek5lLZWY

(January 16, 2016 at 6:40 am)yukapuka Wrote: ps i am a trained physicist

Yeeahh... hands up anyone who buys this.

ps. I'm not a trained physicist, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night.

(January 16, 2016 at 6:40 am)yukapuka Wrote: okay genius, since your going to play that game, prove to me that dark mater and dark energy exists ?

prove to me using ke = mv^2 + mgh

that it exists?

prove it

prove F = ma

prove E = kE + mGH

etc

prove to me ANY mathematical formulae is true?

ps i am a trained physicist

First of all, if you are a trained physicist, you don't go around quoting physics formula from a high school textbook. Second, physics formula are not mathematical theorems that one "proves". They stem from a theory, which has supports only if there is scientific evidence - by "scientific" I mean, verifiable, reproducible and testable. Thirdly, you can check my blog to see at what level of physics I'm capable.

(January 16, 2016 at 10:19 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 16, 2016 at 6:40 am)yukapuka Wrote: ps i am a trained physicist

Yeeahh... hands up anyone who buys this.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-cDAqrywsHE