The Ownership of Science

[GaryAnderson]

You don't realize how the first part of the sentence is incoherent with respect to the second - but I want to point out that you mis-titled this thread.

What you really wanted to know was who owned faithing. Have at it, it's all yours?

Oh no no no, I just want to see how tolerant you are and that science doesn’t belong just to you, but to all humanity.

[The Grand Nudger]

That would ruin all the fun. You now how it is, you go to meet new people at their place, pick a room..shit on the floor..then pick another room..shit on that floor.

Sooner or later you'll have shit everywhere and isn't it wonderful!

---

You don't realize how the first part of the sentence is incoherent with respect to the second - but I want to point out that you mis-titled this thread.

What you really wanted to know was who owned faithing.  Have at it, it's all yours?

Oh no no no, I just want to see how tolerant you are and that science doesn’t belong just to you, but to all humanity.

Yeah, I'm not picking any of that up from any of your comments in thread, so..meh.

[LadyForCamus]

Your mom owns science. At least, that’s what she told me last night.

[Jehanne]

That there is a God who created the finely tuned Universe is, and always will be, a possibility; problem is that such a proposition is an inherently untestable hypothesis, and as other naturalistic explanations (multiverse) exist, via Occam's Razor (the scientific principle of parsimony), the naturalistic models (which are testable) are to be preferred.

This is correct. None of these things will be proven for as long as humanity exists. Which is why the question is: Does anybody here have any problems with people using science to take a leap of faith and answer existential “why-s”?

You can use whatever you want; that's religious faith, its endless malleability given its inherently nonfalsifiable propositions.

[Ahriman]

This is correct. None of these things will be proven for as long as humanity exists. Which is why the question is: Does anybody here have any problems with people using science to take a leap of faith and answer existential “why-s”?

You can use whatever you want; that's religious faith, its endless malleability given its inherently nonfalsifiable propositions.

One of us. One of us.

[brewer]

You don't realize how the first part of the sentence is incoherent with respect to the second - but I want to point out that you mis-titled this thread.

What you really wanted to know was who owned faithing.  Have at it, it's all yours?

Oh no no no, I just want to see how tolerant you are and that science doesn’t belong just to you, but to all humanity.

It does, in many aspects, belong to humanity but if used inappropriately to come to non science conclusions then the validity of those conclusions should be questioned.

The theists who reference science for god arguments are simply validating that their faith can't stand on it's own. If god(s) actually existed as more than a concept then god (and it's religion) would not need to use science (incorrectly) to be convincing.

[zebo-the-fat]

Science isn't a thing to be "owned" (whatever that means) it is a way of thinking, it compares observed reality with theory, if they don't agree the theory is changed.
(unlike religion, it changes when there is new information)

The universe seems to be fine tuned for death not life, 99.9999% of it will kill you in a second, too hot, too cold, to much radiation, too much gravity, not enough air, wrong type of air.... the list goes on and on!

[Ranjr]

leap of faith

1. an act of believing in or attempting something whose existence or outcome cannot be proved.
   

You don't need science to take a leap of faith.  In fact, it's the very act of abandoning science.  Might as well jump.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not really, but if we have to argue What Is Words And How Do They Do!?! from the outset, your objections are almost certainly going to be inane.

Pretty simple, and simply inane.  The universe isn't fine tuned for life.  You're a puddle of water marveling at how perfectly the hole was made for you.  Your hypothetical theist is wrong on the facts - and spouting speudoscientific claptrap, instead.

All I see are 3 opinions about generally accepts facts. Why is fine-tuning not a viable hypothesis? What exactly is your objection other than incredulity?

You too?  Let that stand as a demonstration of why no one should ever give you the benefit of the doubt.

Three isn't an opinion about facts, it's a fact free misrepresentation of those facts - which it implicitly rejects. The earth isn't man shaped..people are earth shaped. The universe isn't earth shaped, earth is universe shaped. Are the faithful ever going to decide to stop dying on the hill of mere biology? Worse, it's not just wrong on the facts, which is to say that it;s premises are demonstrably not sound.. it's not even a valid inference on it's own merits. Is it worth torching whatever credibility you had with people who didn't think you were knuckle dragging loons already?

Either of you, at any point, could offer up a why, explain the thing that god is important to, to you..and I'd be happy to show you how to derive that same normative content without a fact free bullshit session. Like I keep mentioning, it's probably not likely that it can't be done any other way. If anyone wants to use science to establish their religious beliefs - they can do so - or at least attempt to do so... but that gets lost on people who tend to reject science, rather than employ it.

[Spongebob]

So far I've seen this GaryAnderson display a lot of nonsensical ideas, but the one that strikes me the hardest is when he says things like "philosophy uses science for...". First problem here is that the scientific method is a philosophy or is based in philosophy. You can't separate science from philosophy. So it really is nonsensical to say things like it's wrong for philosophy to use science for...(fill in blank). And if you want to argue about something specific that some philosopher said, you really have to get into the details about that; you can't generalize and make a meaningful argument.

But if your question really is as the OP suggests about who can or should use science, then the question is again, somewhat nonsensical. The scientific method is a philosophical method for solving problems or answering questions. Anyone can use it for anything and the results (provided you do it correctly) are more likely to be reliable than if you based the answer to your question on something like ancient books or cultural wisdom or guessing.