Simple Questions About Beliefs

Brazko

Brazko

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
The scientific method as we know it today was not used in those days. Scientists used whatever techniques they thought were accurate, there wasn't a testable, verifiable way to corroborate data during that time. Today there is. That's why using such claims like the one Mrs. Wright made is ignorant. It was the scientists who came along and corrected the mistake. Like Morgen said, she's just parrotting shit she's heard from other creationists without actually doing any research, then to top it off, during her presentation she carries the smuggest smile I've ever witnessed! I LOL'd when Dawkins said "just pick up a book!" lmfao!

The creationists are still clinging to the way they used to do science back in the day. That method is not science, as perfectly represented by Heckels embryo's. Quite ironic she doesn't understand that.

As for the "Darwinian" society, he's absolutely right, it would be terrible. But that says nothing about the validity of the theory. What, are we supposed to dismiss it as false simply because it scares us? Ridiculous. This argument is similar to the "Hitler believed in Darwinism so that must mean it's bad!" Dawkins makes perfect sense when he says we should study the theory so that we can understand it better and avoid such atrocities as the Holocaust and inhumane medical practices like eugenics! Avoiding the data, misinterpreting the research, and manipulating the evidence is NOT the way to plan ahead and make the best decisions. You make the best decisions by collecting the most CORRECT information and applying it to the problem, exactly as he suggested. Just because the way a certain mechanism described in the theory functions is essentially "survival of the fittest" does not mean we should base our moral code upon it. That's retarded. The theory of evolution says nothing about how human beings should act or behave, only how we EVOLVE.
Click to expand...
Yes, I completely understand the point he was making. Understanding all details of human existence prevents us from making the same mistakes. However, my point was that extreme views of both sides of the isle are contempt with their views, but you cannot claim the justification of your views to the whole when it is not so, just as you cannot blame the whole for the incorrect justifications as dictated by certain individuals.

The point is, Fault & Correction is Universal.. It is not a proponent of one or the other. Methods of science has always existed in some form of fashion that is always ante up by future methods that prove the others to be in adequate. Just as the methods we take today will become inadequate towards the accuracy of our beholden future. The procedural steps we take today will be seen as faulty!!
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Brazko said:
Yes, I completely understand the point he was making. Understanding all details of human existence prevents us from making the same mistakes. However, my point was that extreme views of both sides of the isle are contempt with their views, but you cannot claim the justification of your views to the whole when it is not so, just as you cannot blame the whole for the incorrect justifications as dictated by certain individuals.

The point is, Fault & Correction is Universal.. It is not a proponent of one or the other. Methods of science has always existed in some form of fashion that is always ante up by future methods that prove the others to be in adequate. Just as the methods we take today will become inadequate towards the accuracy of our beholden future. The procedural steps we take today will be seen as faulty!!
Click to expand...

I disagree with your conclusion. We devised the scientific method explicitly for that reason, to ensure us that the information we collect is correct. Instead of collecting data and basing it's validity off of someones subjective interpretation of it, we have a method to verify experiments.

This does not mean mistakes don't happen. But it's not accurate to say that because some mistakes happen, todays science will be tomorrows pseudo-science. The science we gather today is accurate beyond accurate. We know things for certain today to the extent certainty can be achieved because of the methods we use to measure them, via science.

One other thing I want to point out. Believing such things as the earth is flat and is the center of the universe only derive because of religion. Science came along and debunked both those claims.
 
morgentaler

morgentaler

Well-Known Member
When properly done, science reaches conclusions based on evidence and experimentation, and eventually discards or revises that which is rendered obsolete by increased knowledge and technology.

Creationists attempt to shoehorn biology into the book of Genesis, and refused to acknowledge any discovery that contradicts it.
 
Brazko

Brazko

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
I disagree with your conclusion. We devised the scientific method explicitly for that reason, to ensure us that the information we collect is correct. Instead of collecting data and basing it's validity off of someones subjective interpretation of it, we have a method to verify experiments.

This does not mean mistakes don't happen. But it's not accurate to say that because some mistakes happen, todays science will be tomorrows pseudo-science. The science we gather today is accurate beyond accurate. We know things for certain today to the extent certainty can be achieved because of the methods we use to measure them, via science.

One other thing I want to point out. Believing such things as the earth is flat and is the center of the universe only derive because of religion. Science came along and debunked both those claims.
Click to expand...
The scientific method has not changed, just evolved. I didn't say the science we use is pseudo, I said the method of procedure will become faulty. The science will not change, the thought process we apply to science will change, and therefore the previous method of addressing new found technology will be seen as being faulty in course. Religion and Science held the same views, further methods of observations used by the human mind to process the information in new ways debunked those claims. Science is the documentation of human effort. Science does not discover science.. Human effort and thought manipulates science to discover. And that is what I mean, you cannot use justifications in bias. Did science discover we should bury our dead. Did science discover rocks and sticks, and hence forth discovered fire, Did science invent the stone wheel, and hence forth the automobile had arrived. Religion is human experience that is corrected by Human experience. Science is Human effort, adjusted and corrected by human effort. Science is not a discovery, it is Human discovery documented. The Atom did not present itself and say look inside, no deeper. Man discovered the atom, Science did not create the Atom, and man evolves to continue in processing information to look deeper and further manipulating the science it discovered, not created. The same is for Religion, Man discovers new experience and processes the information, correcting the previous observed experience with new information. Science teaches us how to manipulate the discovered technology, Religion teaches us about observed human experience. We learn the inadequacies of the technology and experience as we evolve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top