Kansas school board redefines science

Post Reply New Topic

This critical analysis, however, while initially beginning from a conceptual foundation of assumption, is still enacted through empirical study. The conceptualisation of scientific theory is highly differentiated from the metaphysical debate within philosophy, as one need not be expected to yield concrete results. As Bec said, science is methodological.

The objective truths of Newtonian law or mathematical theory, differ significantly from the philosophical addressal of concepts such as 'The Will to Power', in Nietzsche's work. One would be foolish to deny, as it is proven time and time again empirically, however, the other is a conceptualisation of truth from a metaphysical mental framework.



It's not the assumption that matters, it's the addressal of the assumption.
Science and Philosophy each take a different approach.

Last edited by Durell on 09 Nov 2005, 2:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sorry to say most women have been a WOE TO ME.

Durell

Critical analysis, foundational thesis, and empirical study are a conceptual in their theory and are very similar in their own way just like religion is. They might differentiate from said beliefs from each other, but this is why science is a philosophy in the end. You must have beliefs and assumptions to study science in the first place. That is how science come up with theory in the first place. Science maybe more methodological in it approach than true Philosophy but science in the end is becoming a Philosophy in the End.

Read my above post, they're conceptual as an impetus to empirical analysis. Further this idea and you then have recurring, observational and (in most cases), categorically assessable results. You cannot draw a parallel between the results of such empirical analysis and the concept of 'faith', upon which Religion relies.



A differs from B
B differs from A
Therefore A = B in the End.

That's what the above sentence asserts. The proposition is fallacious.



As I said about conceptual impetus necessitating the beginning of empirical analysis... further this idea once more, keeping in mind that the way Science addresses its assumptions is important in differentiating it from Philosophy. If Science is more methodological than Philosophy, then it can only become more like Philosophy 'In the end', by losing this aspect of its nature. However, by losing this aspect of its nature, it ceases to be Science as we define it, because it would now be adopting the Philosophic form of analysis and be classed under the strand of Philosophy.

You see, Science is not becoming a Philosophy, it would only be misinterpreted as such.

The methodology particular to science is important to differentiate it as a strand of inquiry from philosophy and its subset tiers, if this wasn't true, then what exactly is the whole point of epistemology?



It almost seems that your rationale draws no distinction between something such as epistemology and science. However, a definitive distinction has been made in language, because, although minor, these terms are distinguished from one another. One addresses the factual, the other the wholly conceptual; even though I acknowledge that both start from a conceptual phase (as all ideas do).



You have not satisfactorily proved this point. Please do.

Durell

Science is conceptual in its own beliefs and understanding of what science is in the end. Science makes its own assumptions what is science in the end. We make it to what we what it be in the end too. For we are the ones doing the science and no matter how we differentiate it becomes a philosophy in the end.

So whatever You what to call it or science whats to call it (epistemology) the study of it is science to me. Science has its beliefs and assumptions what does make science science in the end. Science may not believe this but it is what it is then. For You have to remember we humans are doing the science in the end.

That is how the real world works, that is how humans work too.

It is called the HUMAN FACTOR.

As I said, method of pursuit differentiates, as does definition. This cannot be logically denied.

It only becomes a philosophy in the end, to you, because that is how you are choosing to define it. The formal and accepted definitions, however, are in line with what Bec and I have stated.



You are effectively stating that, while Science may not agree with your definition, it is Science that is wrong... not you.

You may continue with rhetoric, however, your circular reasoning did not address my arguments on a point by point basis (As I did with your posts), nor has it satisfactorily PROVEN your point, as you are relying about an individually defined definition, over a uniformly accepted one.

It become that a philosophy to whom wants to believe in it, not just me. No matter what is the formal or accepted definitions are in the end. For that is the way humans are truly in the end. Call it the HUMAN FACTOR that factor does play on the person doing the science in the end, and in the end would You forget the HUMAN FACTOR for we are all HUMANS ARE WE NOT.

Mankind has been asking these question since the beginning of time, in religion and in science, and we will be asking them maybe to the end of times.

For even SCIENCE can not be truly be ABSOLUTE or absolutely be defined truly in the human terms how people see science or even religion in the end.

FOR NOTHING IS TRULY ABSOLUTE IN LIFE.

The Human factor still tends toward acceptance of definitions, even if such acceptance is on a general basis. If someone is described as nice; in our minds we will often have a general idea of how this individual may act. Additionally, we can discount the likelihood of certain actions, as well. For example, there is a slim chance that the person describing the 'nice', individual, witnessed them using kittens as a cheaper alternative to a football.

While not absolute, society and the people that populate it, tend to adhere to a uniform frame of definition. This is the premise of language; agreed upon and assumed definitions and meanings, prevent much confusion in daily life.

As we never discussed notions of absolutism before this point, and you have seemingly just incorporated this fact into your debate, I will now show you how I have addressed this issue, as well (Funnily enough, in a previous post), and will expand upon it.



The 'Human Factor', you speak of, should consider the fact that 'Humans', rely upon agreed upon conventions for the ease of understanding and the subsequent fluid running of discourse within society. If there were no agreed upon standards of definition, then people would constantly be misinterpreting each other and much confusion would arise. Therefore, while there may not exist an overall absolute in terms of definition... the agreed upon standard is what matters, especially when individual reasoning such as yours (see the Epistemology/Science example), would make existing definitions redundant.

Durell

Okay

Show me.

What!?! According to that statement, if a person wants to believe that pigs can fly, that makes it so. Saying science 'becomes' a philosophy to those who want to believe it is completely illogical.



Durell already did.

I going to believe way I believe and nobody is going to change my mind so there. I see it the way I did nobody is going to change even that. Or in any other way shape or form for I see the way I do. So there. Debate that would You.

Well that was a very mature way to concede the argument

You've done nothing but attack our positions. I have nothing against religion and I don't want to change your mind about religion. What I take issue with is religion masquerading as science. It's unfair to lie to children in public schools.

We do not now how we humans will see science, religion, or philosophy, in 100 or 1000 or even 10000 or 100000 years in the future for the is the future.

We may see today as we see it today with its set precepts for that is how we make it today. I am not saying it is right or even wrong for this is how we just do it.

I see it the way I see for I have lived 42 years. In that 42 years I have gained what knowledge and understanding of what it is to me. Yes I see science and religion differently than most do especially here. I can only learn gain knowledge and understanding the way I do it. It may not make any sense but some how it does to me. Even You all see it a little differently from one to the other even with the set precepts how science is or even religion or even philosophy is too.

I try to look beyond the science, the religion, or even the philosophy of it all. I make it my very own an in doing that I do that not trying to make it right or even wrong. And in that I see what I see for it is Me. Maybe I am a eternal optimist about life and humans and we will get beyond what we are doing today. We can debate or even have conversations about it all even wonder about how they in the future we see us, or even us see them. I Myself just tries to see a little bit beyond it all in the end. For isn't that what is life all about doing just that. Looking beyond the next bend and even the next one after that. For that is truly the eternal optimist in Me.

All You guys and gals can see as You want to see it in Your own way.

ghotixtis

I would never attack anybodies positions. I debate and have conversations with people. I just see it differently that You do. A lot people try to turn what I think and say around. I now a lot people would like me to see it there way but I can not do that. I like all of Your (peoples) positions as they are. I do not try to change anybodies positions on what they think. Though sometimes I You all try to change my positions around to Your way of thinking. I just leave it there.

I have been reading a pdf I found on Kansas School Board so far I have found nothing of Intelligent Design.

I see nothing yet to worry about yet I think some here have been misinformed of what they trying to do.

I will keep You informed on what I find out.