A simple reason why creationism is false

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Fliption
I agree with all this for the most part. I'll only add that science is open minded only to the extent that the method allows it to be. It is up to philosphy to decide how adequate that is.

And why is that. What gives philosophy cardinal right to judge science?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Deeviant
And why is that. Why gives philosophy cardinal right to judge science?

Because that's what philosophy is. The scientific method is but a creation and a tool of philosophy. An act of science cannot judge the scientific method. Only philosophy has that scope.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Fliption
Because that's what philosophy is. The scientific method is but a creation and a tool of philosophy. An act of science cannot judge the scientific method. Only philosophy has that scope.

There then is no difference between science and philosophy and thus the statement "It is up to philosphy to decide how adequate it(science) is" has no meaning.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Deeviant
There then is no difference between science and philosophy and thus the statement "It is up to philosphy to decide how adequate it(science) is" has no meaning.

Well, there is a philosophy of science, but some folks seek to ignore it, because it doesn't allow for the level of subjectivity that they would like. So, they assert that a more subjective style of philosophy is needed to reign over science, so that they can insert the level of subjectivity that they desire.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Deeviant
There then is no difference between science and philosophy and thus the statement "It is up to philosphy to decide how adequate it(science) is" has no meaning.

No, philosophy is a broader field around acquiring wisdom/knowledge. Science is a subset or a tool of philosophy that helps to accomplish that through a strict method of application.

 

[Royce]

My point in my previous post was that scientist are people with all of the human weaknesses and biases just like those who wrote the bible.
We all have a tendency to resist change and to discard the things we worked so hard to attain and obtain including learning and knowledge. Established scientist resist change just like everybody else does.
Do I need to list the many cases of established science ridiculing and deriding young scientists with new theories that have taken place just in my life time. Even the term Big Bang was a term of derision but backfired as it was soon became the accepted name of the theory.

We seem to forget that religion and spirituality is based on the study and observations and experience of thousands of people of every culture over thousands of years. Yet since it isn't science or empirical or material it is bunk and myth. That in my opinion is the very definition of a closed mind with telescopic vision.

 

[Zero]

Resisting change is good, so long as you don't totally rule it out. Any scientific theory which survives the onslaught of peer review and heavy resistance deserves to be embraced, that's the point of the whole thing in the first place.

As far as the "experience" of people over thousands of years...the evidence doesn't hold up to scrutiny, which means it is rightly rejected. When you get better evidence, you are always welcome to try again, though. THAT'S the great part about science, the willingness to accept new evidence. When was the last time you saw a religion change its mind when new evidence debunked their beliefs?

 

[Royce]

While it and all related evidence is not empirical, never can be empirical, it is evidence. It is verifiable, repeatable, and observable. You yourself have observed all of this time and time again right here of this forum. A number of us, myself, Les, Ole drunk for just a few have all reported the same things in our own personal way as it applies to us individually but it is the same phenomena.
You come short of calling all of us liars but you do not hesitate to say that we are deluded and believers in myth. You poke fun at us with your Santa Claus and pink unicorns just as Deeviant does with his gym shorts. And yes I do think it is funny and am not in the least offended. Frustrated, yes; but, not offended.
So long as you close your mind to the possibility of there being any real thing that is not material and not measurable then you and other like you will never be able to accept what virtually all of mankind has been saying for 3000+ years; nor, will you ever be able to see any thing but what you let yourself see or know. Your position that nothing that is not material and not supported by empirical evidence can exist is reality is a closed position of tunnel vision.

However, every once in a while you have let slip a tiny bit of subjective belief as in your previous post of different levels of the mind. It is not just you Zero, or even Deeviant; I just can't see how one could call him or herself a scientist in good conscious unless they are willing to look at all of the evidence, empirical or not, and be willing to look wherever that evidence might lead them.
Your also wrong about scientist denying evidence even repeatable empirical evidence for the sake of status quo. It has happened time and time again in this century alone. If they can't attack or dispute the evidence they attack the person and literally attempt to destroy their career and drum them out of the field. That is not science nor are they the scientist that the claim to be when they act this way; but, it is human.
My one and only point is that science is a tool used by human beings and is only as good as the humans using it. In this sense science is no different or better than religionists, dualist or idealist or me a realist.

I am also a left handed Capricorn which may in itself explain a lot.

 

[Polly]

When a business from the UK goes to the PRC to do business, he has to comply with all the PRC rules and regulations, he can't just say,"Why should I go through business registration again? I am a Fortune 100 company with a market capitalisation of US100 million, everybody knows me, check it out and don't bother me again." He would make himself very unpopular if he does so. Likewise, he should not find himself saying,"I want this to be executed as a deed for maximum security, your chop just isn't good enough." He would be surprised to know that a simple thing as a seal is an affront to the PRC ideology and an icon of evil old China. Likewise he should not expect his equitable interest in a property enforceable in the country because equity was almost a corollary imperative of English history.
My point is, since skepticism is an essential part of scientific mental discipline, we just have to accept and respect it. After all it is this very skeptism and regidity in methodology that lends it its authority.

 

[Zero]

Royce,

I don't understand how something non-empirical could be counted as evidence with the same weight as empirical evidence. The idea is ridiculous, anti-reason, anti-science. I don't think you are liars, and I think your experiences are "real", I just don't think they carry the significance you assign to them. After all, I've done the meditation thing, the OBE, etc, and never for a moment did I think there was anything non-physical about it.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Royce,

I don't understand how something non-empirical could be counted as evidence with the same weight as empirical evidence. The idea is ridiculous, anti-reason, anti-science. I don't think you are liars, and I think your experiences are "real", I just don't think they carry the significance you assign to them.Scientifically, it obviously can't be counted as evidence. Nor would it carry the same scientific weight.

It is not scientific, however. Is is subjective and anecdotal evidence and within that paradigm it carries the same weight as any other evidence. Again, applying the wrong tool to the wrong job and expecting the same standards is not realistic or logical.
Why would you attempt to measure the temperature of a pot of water with a yard stick or kill a fly with a sledge hammer?

After all, I've done the meditation thing, the OBE, etc, and never for a moment did I think there was anything non-physical about it.

If that is the case then our disagreement is simply our different points of view, the way we look at things. You see everything as physical whereas I see things a spiritual, subjective and objective yet all of the one reality. IOW, we see the same things the same ways but have different names for them and I make a distinction between them whereas you don't.
The other difference it that you seem to look at things is a strict scientific way whereas I apply different standards to different types of phenomena. I can't say either of us is right or wrong. It just seems to me more reasonable to use different tools for different jobs.
It is not a matter of lowering standards. It is a matter of not applying the rule for empirical evidence to non-empirical subjects.
The reason science does not see any evidence of these kinds of phenomena is that it is not empirical in the first place. Most admit that but some don't and clam that there is no scientific empirical evidence and that proves that it does not exist. This in itself is not scientific, as you well know, but they still claim the authority of science in making their claims. This, to me is unreasonable, illogical, dishonest and non-scientific.

 

[Zero]

LOL, anecdotal "evidence" is the absolute worst thing we've got. Period, par none, may as well not even bother with anecdotes. If it isn't empirical, how can we count it as evidence? The short answer is that we simply can't. IF you don't want to submit your ideas and thinking to the stringent standards that science requires, that's fine. Just don't expect to make claims about the real world and it go unquestioned.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Royce

The reason science does not see any evidence of these kinds of phenomena is that it is not empirical in the first place. Most admit that but some don't and clam that there is no scientific empirical evidence and that proves that it does not exist. This in itself is not scientific, as you well know, but they still claim the authority of science in making their claims. This, to me is unreasonable, illogical, dishonest and non-scientific.

Most of whome? Most scientists? Most general people of the world? I'm sorry to inform you but the far majority of people deeply embedded in the field of science would disagree with you.

And to claim that holding observational empirical evidence above all else is "non-scientific" is silly and I don't even want to get into responding to your claim of it being "dishonest"

 

[Zero]

I am confused as to how someone can claim to speak logically about non-empirical "experience", since by definition it cannot be observed in such a way as to make solid declarations about it.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, anecdotal "evidence" is the absolute worst thing we've got. Period, par none, may as well not even bother with anecdotes. If it isn't empirical, how can we count it as evidence? The short answer is that we simply can't. IF you don't want to submit your ideas and thinking to the stringent standards that science requires, that's fine. Just don't expect to make claims about the real world and it go unquestioned.

Your "real" world and my "real" world are obviously different. Believe it or not, Zero, there is life outside of science. There is in fact a whole world, a whole universe that couldn't care less about science and it's rules of evidence.
I don't want to submit my ideas and thinking to the stringent standards of science because science, real science admits that it cannot and is not meant to consider such ideas and thinking. It isn't science its is philosophy and this is the philosophy forum of the Physics Forum.
I don't expect to make claims about the real world and have them go unquestioned. I don't expect non-scientific but philosophical statements, non-empirical but subjective statements or claim to be subject to that which itself claims it is not capable of considering because it is outside its field.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Your "real" world and my "real" world are obviously different. Believe it or not, Zero, there is life outside of science. There is in fact a whole world, a whole universe that couldn't care less about science and it's rules of evidence.
I don't want to submit my ideas and thinking to the stringent standards of science because science, real science admits that it cannot and is not meant to consider such ideas and thinking. It isn't science its is philosophy and this is the philosophy forum of the Physics Forum.
I don't expect to make claims about the real world and have them go unquestioned. I don't expect non-scientific but philosophical statements, non-empirical but subjective statements or claim to be subject to that which itself claims it is not capable of considering because it is outside its field.

Ummm...ok. If you say so. Yeah, there's a whole wide world out there, and it is cheapened when people try to pretend it is some sort of magic trick. There's MY philosophy for you.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Deeviant
Most of whom? Most scientists? Most general people of the world? I'm sorry to inform you but the far majority of people deeply embedded in the field of science would disagree with you.

Please read my post again as you seem to have mis understood it's meaning and intent. Yes I meant most scientist admit that science does not consider non-empirical, non-objective subjects because they are outside of the domain of science and cannot be answered or addressed scientifically but belong in the domain of philosophy.

And to claim that holding observational empirical evidence above all else is "non-scientific" is silly and I don't even want to get into responding to your claim of it being "dishonest"

It is, as I said, non-scientific to apply the rules of science to that which is not science but philosophy. I do not use the rules of chess while playing checkers. to do so knowingly would be dishonest.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...ok. If you say so. Yeah, there's a whole wide world out there, and it is cheapened when people try to pretend it is some sort of magic trick. There's MY philosophy for you.

Well, I for one do not cheapen it despite what you may or may not think of my philosophy and beliefs. I do not believe in magic nor do I invoke magic to explain or excuse anything. I am not "religious"
and that is part of my problem.
People confuse or identify spiritual with organized religion and chicanery. I or my beliefs are condemned by association. I don't know how to disassociate spritualism, the belief in God, the creator (and master) of the universe, from organized religion, bible thumpers or fortune tellers, mediums or other such frauds.
It is difficult for me to get beyond this bias that I share to discuss seriously any such beliefs of philosophies. Ah well, such is life.

 

[Zero]

"Spiritualism" is religion without the brand name. It still resorts to cheap parlor tricks in lieu of rational explanations.