(April 25, 2015 at 7:03 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: What is non-empirical about maths?

Maths are all about definition and proof without reference to the real world. (Of course something in the real world can motivate a mathematical definition, but the math process itself doesn't depend on experiment in any way. There are also schools of thought that say math is discovered, in opposition to the ones that say it's invented. But the principle of isomorphism says that mathematical truths are independent of the notation used to express them. Including physical counters from marbles to atomic nuclei.)

Sure, applied maths attempts to model the real world. Pure maths doesn't even necessarily have to have anything to do with reality, it only needs to be consistent within itself.

(April 25, 2015 at 4:39 am)Alex K Wrote: @red Economist

What do you mean by "science is right"?

(April 25, 2015 at 6:35 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(April 25, 2015 at 3:56 am)Red Economist Wrote: That's not a problem. I think you may find a lot of atheists take it for granted that science is right and so may not be open to understanding the philosophical background. Once you start walking away from Science and into philosophy, the debate becomes much more open as it is possible to discuss how something can be considered true, what evidence matters and what constitutes 'proof' for an idea.

p.s. I'm not a scientist. my knowledge of natural science is fairly limited beyond a high school/secondary school level, but the philosophy of science has been of interest as an atheist.

Science is as right as we can make it with available evidence and is the only means we have to dispassionately discover reality.

Philosophy can be interesting but to get to the truth scientific methods must be used.

By the way I distrust the term "natural science" there is only science.

By "science is right" I mean the idea that Science gives us "perfect" knowledge of the objective world (which it doesn't). Its a misunderstanding that is more true of popular science as Science is something of a best guess approximation of how the world works and our ideas have to constantly be improved upon, so scientific knowledge is not absolute. Sometimes people think that scientific answers are true for all time, but that is relative to our technological capacity to reproduce natural phenomena and thereby demonstrate that our ideas correspond to the world as well as the system of ideas we have at our disposal to describe that world.

(April 25, 2015 at 8:56 am)Red Economist Wrote: By "science is right" I mean the idea that Science gives us "perfect" knowledge of the objective world (which it doesn't). Its a misunderstanding that is more true of popular science as Science is something of a best guess approximation of how the world works and our ideas have to constantly be improved upon, so scientific knowledge is not absolute. Sometimes people think that scientific answers are true for all time, but that is relative to our technological capacity to reproduce natural phenomena and thereby demonstrate that our ideas correspond to the world as well as the system of ideas we have at our disposal to describe that world.

Yes, all theories are probably wrong.

(April 25, 2015 at 6:59 am)Hatshepsut Wrote: Then again, the OP looks pretty lame to me. (  my ego speaking)

Not disagreeing or pulling any rank, but after dwelving through so much theistic bullshit over my short life, I find that some snark does me more good than fret upon others ignorance. One can't save everybody, or like it is said:

Quote:There is no wealth like knowledge, there is no poverty like ignorance

I don't think I've ever heard anybody say science gives absolute truth. Where have you been finding people like that?

I've heard a lot of theists claim that atheists say it, however.

(April 24, 2015 at 6:48 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: "In my opinion" and "my findings" imply that when I say "evidence", it means that I deem it as evidence for myself.  Do I have "evidence" by your terms, no...  But I deem it as true based on the countless testimonies (of athiests as well), cults, and historical accounts to name a few.  If you have not done sufficient research on this topic, you are the one that is fooled, not me.

Here, this might help:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

I have a serious question. Is your English teacher also your mother? Your fervent ignorance related to the function and method of science, let alone it's basic discoveries, makes this a very real possibility.

(April 25, 2015 at 9:31 am)Cato Wrote: I have a serious question. Is your English teacher also your mother? Your fervent ignorance related to the function and method of science, let alone it's basic discoveries, makes this a very real possibility.

Yeah, as I said, I have some serious problem with a school accepting something like that without prescribing a second helping of science classes.

I didn't see the bit about how the op was a high schooler. I was a bit grumpy from dealing with older creationists all week, so I apologize for a perfunctory answer.

The problem I have with the essay is that it shows a basic lack of understanding about the theories in question and about how science works. There's a quote from a song I like: "there's nothing here to argue with, it's a process not an ideology." You can argue the facts and conclusions, but the process can't be.

But why not? What is science anyway? Science is the process of forming a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, and modifying the hypothesis if needed based on the results of said test. That's it. We all rely on this process all the time. It's how you know if your stove is hot, you place your hand over the burner and see of you feel heat. If you feel the heat rising you conclude that the stove is hot.

But what else voters me is the false dichotomy that others have pointed out, that it has to be God or evolution/cosmology. No. All the science can be wrong and it would still not mean that god exists. Likewise god could exist and scientific theories as we currently know them could be correct. It's like saying the existence of blue coffee cups is dependent on bathrooms not existing. The two things aren't related at all. It may relate to fundamentalism, which is another matter, but not to god.

If you want to prove god then demonstrate god. If you want to prove a thing exists then show me the thing. If you believe demons and souls exist, show them to me. Let me see them and verify them.

I am a structural engineering student, science is not my field beyond the physics and chemistry I use to make shit stand up. I just happen to be a person who wants to understand how shit works.

(April 24, 2015 at 6:33 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote:

(April 24, 2015 at 6:26 pm)Chas Wrote: At best, you have fooled yourself; at worst, you are delusional.   



No, you do not appear to be a rational thinker - certainly not a critical thinker; you have swallowed some nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

Lol. You're quite vindictive don't you think?  What have I done to offend you?  Presented a contrary opinion?  If you're going to say such things, at least provide some reasoning that the spiritual realm would be highly improbable.  Notice that I said prove it to be improbable, not true.  I don't want anything saying this is a fallacy because I know very well this cannot be disproven.  

I am not vindictive, just impatient with foolishness masquerading as thought.

Show us your evidence of spirits.