Yung_T, have you ever heard of the term: representative anecdote? If not, let me explain it to you. Basically, a representative anecdote was first coined by kenneth burke, who used it to expand upon his idea of scope and reduction in the involvement of human motives. But this idea actually is the central problem with scientific method in general. The #1 reason why most theories are corrected (or challenged) is due to an independent experiment which challenges the conclusions and findings of the initial experiment. In the main, therefore, and to the degree that experiment b is accepted, we could say experiment b was more representative of the scientific findings or theory than experiment a. I am not sure you understand the dilemma this presents, however, let me point it out to you. first, the problem lies (with any findings) to find the correct representative anecdote. While the experiments, in both cases, were measurable, you can recreate the experiment, however the fact remains that we have two competing experiments that contradict one another. basically, it boils down to interpretation. just like with religion.
This is actually frightening. I could understand this world view from the member of some lost tribe in the Amazon or something. But when someone posting on a message board on the Internet, for christ's sake, actually types "the scientific method is a joke and everybody knows it is a joke" it makes me fear for our species.
This is actually one of the funniest things I've ever read, to believe in something because you know it can never be proven. Wouldn't the (alleged) second coming of Christ prove the existence of God? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=8155674&highlight=Disprove#post8155674
To be fair, this was the only sensical thing he said. The leap of faith (where one believes that there is more than the rational life. ie ethical, aesthetic, etc) concept was originally defined by Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard, but even Albert Camus recognized it's significance to atheists. Camus described the human condition, man's desire for significance only to be met with an unwaveringly indifferent universe, as the absurd all humans will eventually face. No matter what science proves, it can never prove fundamental meaning to life. At that point you can either ignore the absurd, or choose suicide, a leap of faith, or recognition & acceptance of the universal absurd as cause to essentially define life's meaning for yourself. No matter which you choose, each choice includes an acceptance/faith in something there is no real answer for. Be it a faith in something metaphysical that gives our lives meaning, or a belief that the universe is fundamentally devoid of absolutes. I choose the latter for a number of reasons, but that in itself is requires a faith in the fact that the views I've accepted are profoundly individual. In the big picture, probably no less blind either.
No, having faith in the existence of something because you know it can't be proven is stupid. You've interpreted his statement differently. He possibly meant that he has faith in god because it provides meaning and he knows god can't be proven but that's not what he said.
dude, you are so far out there that it doesn't even make sense to argue points with you. It seems to me that your M.O. is to throw out christian doctrine that you find ridiculous and laugh your ass off at it. Didn't Moses part the red seas [insert bwhwhbwahbwahbhw] then [insert a condescending point]. like i said, you will never come to grips with the fact that science is nothing more than interpretation and guesswork. You will look at that point and sneer at it, I'm sure. Never owning up to your own bull****. You fail to look deep enough into anything. You claim people are nothing more than chemicals, and yet you fail to realize that your "scope" to make such an assertion doesn't include a linguistic element. Chemicals don't talk or hold rational conversations. Chemicals don't have motives. Are people chemicals? Sure they are. But THAT can't possible be ALL THEY ARE. But your scientific Method doesn't ALLOW for the other part of the equation, so you go on your merry way believing that all we are are chemicals. Again, like I've said over and over, if you follow the scientific method to the letter and your experiment can be recreated, then that theory should be a solid, infallible fact. So why does science call it a theory then? Why don't they call it a plain fact. Answer that honestly and maybe we can talk. You want to sneer at Christians for their lack of scientific sturdiness to put their beliefs to the test like science does, but you fail to realize that science's so-called "test" is so flawed. it has to be, because every theory would be fact once it "passed" the test: the scientific method.
No, that's just cometswin selective reading comprehension issue. It would be the word "faith" that would trip him up because he doesn't get the term. if he understood the word faith, he'd realize that I was using it to explain my faith. believing in god begins and ends with faith in a creator, if you don't have faith in god you can't believe in god. an atheist wants to have proof before he will believe, and what I was trying to explain is that Christians don't have to go around looking for proof, because the basis of their faith is faith.
what, I'm going to post some definitions for you. BTW, when you're saying you do you mean me singularly or all y'all science believing people? Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3 A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5] A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]
again, you won't debate the points, because you can't debate them. i would LOVE for you to contradict my points, show me the error of my ways, but you can't, because you know once you do get into a debate like this science gets exposed.
why would you have to correct knowledge again? I thought the scientific method was their to make sure that the knowledge was correct from the beginning?
Maybe I don't know what the word faith means. Let's check. faith [feyth] Show IPA noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. English isn't my first language but you are saying you have faith in god because the existence of god can't be proven. Maybe we should post the definition of WHY? Anyway, that you believe god can't be proven kind of makes you a poser worshipper. I never met a Christian that didnt believe God couldn't prove himself at any time if he so chose.
