RE: Atheism the unscientific believe.
August 22, 2015 at 11:32 am
(This post was last modified: August 22, 2015 at 11:37 am by ErGingerbreadMandude.)
I'll give the readers of this thread a summary of what exactly is going on here through an example.
Consider a subject such as History.
We are saying that History isn't science because well,it isn't.
Rik is saying that History is science,in the sense that any subject involved in History such as people,rocks,chairs,trains etc can all be "explained" using scientific methods.
In that sense,anything can be science since anything can be explained using at least some scientific methods.
Basically this is an argument where Rik is arguing some "Spiritual" thing he believes in is a science(albeit a "higher" science) in the sense that some of the things involved in this "Spirituality" dogpoop can be explained using some (most probably -not widely accepted) scientific methods.
Edit:
Actually,anything can be classified as science or art - A classification of Management as a Science and Art we had to study comes to mind.A subject can be categorized as a science or art if we weigh it and figure out in which end of the spectrum it falls closest to.
For example:
1+1 = 2. Can be classified as Mathematics as well as an art.
Art in the sense that people do this and people are artistic and bla bla bla that sort of bullshit.
But it falls closer to the spectrum of Mathematics therefore we can classify it as Mathematics rather than art.
What i want to say to Rik is that what he explains as science falls closer to an unscientific methods spectrum and therefore cannot be taken seriously as a science.
Consider a subject such as History.
We are saying that History isn't science because well,it isn't.
Rik is saying that History is science,in the sense that any subject involved in History such as people,rocks,chairs,trains etc can all be "explained" using scientific methods.
In that sense,anything can be science since anything can be explained using at least some scientific methods.
Basically this is an argument where Rik is arguing some "Spiritual" thing he believes in is a science(albeit a "higher" science) in the sense that some of the things involved in this "Spirituality" dogpoop can be explained using some (most probably -not widely accepted) scientific methods.
Edit:
Actually,anything can be classified as science or art - A classification of Management as a Science and Art we had to study comes to mind.A subject can be categorized as a science or art if we weigh it and figure out in which end of the spectrum it falls closest to.
For example:
1+1 = 2. Can be classified as Mathematics as well as an art.
Art in the sense that people do this and people are artistic and bla bla bla that sort of bullshit.
But it falls closer to the spectrum of Mathematics therefore we can classify it as Mathematics rather than art.
What i want to say to Rik is that what he explains as science falls closer to an unscientific methods spectrum and therefore cannot be taken seriously as a science.
