Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The scientific method

Page 3 of 4 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ajpd1989
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 808

16 Mar 2015, 10:19 pm

Janissy wrote:
Ironwood mallets and steel shock proof hammers both belong to the larger group of 'tools that pound' (a term I got from my tool dictionary which divides tools by functional groups).

Interesting. Which group(s) do hammer drills fall into?



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

16 Mar 2015, 10:54 pm

Orangez wrote:
appletheclown wrote:

Then my problem is with people who think the scientific method isn't flawed in any way, and the fact that
they are thereby hypocritical to say the bible is flawed, there fore we shouldn't believe a word it says.
It's over 5000 years old at least, of course its claims are exaggerated, and some of its stories methaphorical.
I have a problem with people who say something that isn't perfect, isn't flawed, whether that is the bible or the scientific method.
And no, my hammer analogy works fine, eventually we will find a replacement for the scientific method, and eventually the bible will be revised, just as the ironwood mallet was revised into the steel shockproof hammer.


How is the scientific method flawed? It runs on a great logic and will throw out worst models for better ones unlike the meta physics of religion which cannot improve on itself since it is already perfect by its own internal logic. Thus, if a religion rejects one of its own ideas it becomes false as a whole. With that idea I can disprove almost all religions as I can find a contradiction, thus, the whole argument falls since God's word is not perfect.

If the scientific method isn't perfect in every conceivable way, then it is flawed, regardless of the fact that you can't find the flaw yet. If the scientific method is improved on, then the improvements reveal the flaws of the previous version. You obviously didn't pay attention to my post when I mentioned the bible has its flaws, and regardless of petty contradictions, I still believe in it. You are going to have to do a lot better than 'contradictions'.


_________________
comedic burp


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

17 Mar 2015, 6:13 am

ajpd1989 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Ironwood mallets and steel shock proof hammers both belong to the larger group of 'tools that pound' (a term I got from my tool dictionary which divides tools by functional groups).

Interesting. Which group(s) do hammer drills fall into?


hammer drills are in 'tools that drill and drive'

there's also 'tools that measure', 'tools that shape', tools that protect' and more. ultimate guide to tools



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

17 Mar 2015, 6:24 am

Excellent link Janissy.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,853
Location: London

17 Mar 2015, 6:30 am

appletheclown wrote:
If the scientific method isn't perfect in every conceivable way, then it is flawed, regardless of the fact that you can't find the flaw yet. If the scientific method is improved on, then the improvements reveal the flaws of the previous version. You obviously didn't pay attention to my post when I mentioned the bible has its flaws, and regardless of petty contradictions, I still believe in it. You are going to have to do a lot better than 'contradictions'.

So, you believe in something that you know is wrong and cannot be true? Something that repeatedly gets facts about history and morality wrong?

The difference between you and an empiricist is that, whilst you both believe in things that are incorrect, an empiricist will try to change their views when they are shown to be incorrect. You know that specific beliefs of yours are wrong, and yet you stick by them anyway.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Mar 2015, 8:13 am

The_Walrus wrote:
... You know that specific beliefs of yours are wrong, and yet you stick by them anyway.
Isn't there some analogous maxim between this and "... trying the same thing repeatedly, and expecting a different result each time ..."?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

17 Mar 2015, 8:32 am

I think it's related to Einstein quip about futility. I forgot what it was, exactly.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

17 Mar 2015, 11:19 am

The_Walrus wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
If the scientific method isn't perfect in every conceivable way, then it is flawed, regardless of the fact that you can't find the flaw yet. If the scientific method is improved on, then the improvements reveal the flaws of the previous version. You obviously didn't pay attention to my post when I mentioned the bible has its flaws, and regardless of petty contradictions, I still believe in it. You are going to have to do a lot better than 'contradictions'.

So, you believe in something that you know is wrong and cannot be true? Something that repeatedly gets facts about history and morality wrong?

The difference between you and an empiricist is that, whilst you both believe in things that are incorrect, an empiricist will try to change their views when they are shown to be incorrect. You know that specific beliefs of yours are wrong, and yet you stick by them anyway.

The contradictions in the bible don't prove the bible wrong, nor does it claim its teachings on morality are going to be accepted by everyone.
And morality is not a fact, it is a belief everyone has, you have morals too.
Not all morals are the same either.
When you say my beliefs are wrong, you obviously think you don't agree with my beliefs, but that you do disagree with the bible.
What about the bible do you actually disagree with?


_________________
comedic burp


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2015, 5:30 pm

appletheclown wrote:
What about the bible do you actually disagree with?


1. non-spherical earth.
2. sun going around the earth
3. world wide flood (it never happened)
4. sun, moon and stars created on the 4 th day



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,853
Location: London

17 Mar 2015, 7:30 pm

appletheclown wrote:
The contradictions in the bible don't prove the bible wrong,

Two contradictory statements cannot both be true...

appletheclown wrote:
nor does it claim its teachings on morality are going to be accepted by everyone.

It doesn't need to. However, its moral teachings are, at times, clearly immoral. Ergo, the Bible is wrong.
appletheclown wrote:
And morality is not a fact, it is a belief everyone has, you have morals too.

Morality is a matter of fact. It is a fact that murder is wrong, for example. Just because some people get it wrong doesn't mean that it isn't a fact.

Quote:
When you say my beliefs are wrong, you obviously think you don't agree with my beliefs, but that you do disagree with the bible.
What about the bible do you actually disagree with?

Yes, I disagree with both your beliefs and the Bible.

Some starters:
1) More or less all of Genesis 1-3 is demonstrably false
2) Much of the Gospels are implausible. For example, experiments demonstrate that man cannot walk on water.
3) The Bible describes homosexuality as an "abomination".
4) The Bible advocates death as a punishment several times
5) The Bible endorses rape of prisoners

Is that a sufficient start?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

17 Mar 2015, 7:47 pm

appletheclown wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
If the scientific method isn't perfect in every conceivable way, then it is flawed, regardless of the fact that you can't find the flaw yet. If the scientific method is improved on, then the improvements reveal the flaws of the previous version. You obviously didn't pay attention to my post when I mentioned the bible has its flaws, and regardless of petty contradictions, I still believe in it. You are going to have to do a lot better than 'contradictions'.

So, you believe in something that you know is wrong and cannot be true? Something that repeatedly gets facts about history and morality wrong?

The difference between you and an empiricist is that, whilst you both believe in things that are incorrect, an empiricist will try to change their views when they are shown to be incorrect. You know that specific beliefs of yours are wrong, and yet you stick by them anyway.

The contradictions in the bible don't prove the bible wrong, nor does it claim its teachings on morality are going to be accepted by everyone.
And morality is not a fact, it is a belief everyone has, you have morals too.
Not all morals are the same either.
When you say my beliefs are wrong, you obviously think you don't agree with my beliefs, but that you do disagree with the bible.
What about the bible do you actually disagree with?


The question is: what about the Bible do you "believe in"? What do folks like you who proclaim that they "believe in the Bible" mean by the statement?

Do you mean "believe in some inner message of the Bible"?
Or do you mean "believe in it literally as a factual account"?

Those are two very different things.

If the latter then you have the problems Ruvyen listed. Those in addition to:talking snakes, virgin births, the Sun loitering at one spot in the sky for several hours, guys living for 900 years, and a person living inside the belly of whale.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Mar 2015, 7:52 pm

6) The Bible allows for men to sell their daughters as servants (Exodus 21:7).
7) The Bible allows for people to buy and own slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46)
8) The Bible gives direction for how slaves should be treated (Exodus 21:2-6).



Last edited by Fnord on 17 Mar 2015, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

17 Mar 2015, 7:56 pm

I think most people think of the Bible as something metaphorical--as something of a framework for belief--rather than something to believe in literally.

It's obvious that there were laws in Biblical times which we would find odious today. If we believe in the Bible literally, we would believe in those punishments--many of which were quite similar to those found in the Code of Hammurabi and other such promulgations--would be legit today.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Mar 2015, 7:58 pm

Whoever claims to believe that the Bible is inerrant, must also believe that owning slaves is a God-given right.



Orangez
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 320
Location: British Columbia

17 Mar 2015, 8:19 pm

Fnord wrote:
Whoever claims to believe that the Bible is inerrant, must also believe that owning slaves is a God-given right.


I love when people state I am a christian*.

* Expect everything I don't like about christianity.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

17 Mar 2015, 8:24 pm

You're a Christian if you believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, also known as the "Christ."

That's not pinning down anybody's particular religious beliefs, though. Christianity is a very general entity, with lots of specificities contained within it.