Which science majors have the fewest conservatives?

Sithis
Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:35:01 +0000

“how so? our idea of the christian god tells us that he answers prayers, once stopped the sun during joshua’s battle, placed a soul in each human mind, etc.”

What I mean is, it is easier to discuss empirically things that are supposed to happen in the present and that happen in the physical world i.e. Santa and Dragon. With prayers there
would be a problem of “act of God vs coincidence” (God doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere and say “Prayer granted” to take responsibility for the act),
nor does an unanswered prayer prove that God doesn’t exist empirically. Things that happened in the past are difficult to prove empirically. Also I don’t necessarily think it is safe to assume that every Bible story is 100% accurate. Souls…well we don’t need to get into theory of the mind; this discussion has become longwinded enough
as it is; I’m surprised this thread hasn’t been locked yet haha.

“but this is getting into semantics…”

Language and interpretation are an important part of philosophy if you have to use language to discuss our experiences and ideas.

“i’m no philosopher, and i’m not discussing this”

Philosophy includes metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, all of which are relevant to the discussions we have been having

“i’m not sure what that is, that’s why i didn’t answer…”

I gave you a link explaining it.

"i just have the idea that …observation of reality determines what is …in accordance with fact or reality… "

i.e. empiricism is the only valid epistemology, which is again, debatable.

“idk. because science works?”

That’s a pragmatic view, but that doens’t mean it is “The Truth.”

“1. if, as you argue, everyone is making assumptions (i.e. believe in some things that cannot be verified), then do you think there is no such thing as fact?”

I don’t know; I feel that is possibly debatable whether it is within human capacity to hold absolute facts about the universe. Many scientific theories/laws are based largely on the principles of logic;
and it cannot be said that it is impossible for all time that the principles of logic are false, for one example.

“if verificationism/falsificationism/the scientific method are based on assumptions, is it no fact that the universe is 13.7 billion years old? is it no fact that electricity exists?”

I don’t know; they are based on human understanding of the world, I suppose it could be said that electricity exists as defined by science, and if the methods used to determine the age of the universe are valid,
then the universe is 13.7 billion years old, whatever that means.

“3a. if there is such a thing as fact, what determines that fact, if not verificationism/falsificationism/the scientific method?”

This assumes that if there is Absolute Fact, that we are capable of determining it.

“3b. if there is no fact, and the scientific method is just as valid as theists’ assumption, why does it work so well?
why have everything that has ever been explained, been explained by science?”

I don’t think everything that has been explained has been 100% explained by science. Science has explained things adequately based on the criteria of science, no more.
Science can make predictions with great probability, but not absolute certainty. Whether is works “well” is up for debate, depending on your definition of “well.”
Yes, I did just bring up semantics, sue me. And even if it can objectively be said to work well, this is irrelevant to determining Absolute Facts.

"4. now the claim that there is an independent morality is what needs to be supported with evidence. where is it? "
Was this an actual claim? I think we were mostly talking about the possibility of it exisiting and whether or not it can actually be refuted.

I think I rehashed a few things that silence_kit and mathboy98 have said (and they have good points besides the ones I have), I just wanted to use my own wording/method of thinking.