[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Putting your TRUST in the scientific method is very different that putting your FAITH into religion.
The TRUST in science is EARNED through demonstrable and verifiable reproduction of the test clause/experiment by OUTSIDE peers.
This is different than FAITH which does not test it’s BELIEFS or receive outside peer review to validate or disprove it’s teachings.
Please stop saying that people who put their TRUST in science have faith. It is simply the opposite.[/quote]Prove it. With NO begging of questions and NO circular postulations. Prove it. How do you KNOW anything about anything you just said… or anything else for that matter? Don’t bore me with more evidential bluster. I’m talking beneath that. At the most utterly foundational level. How do you know anything even vaguely related to the scientific method means ANYTHING. What tools do you take into your lab to insure that what your mind perceives as fact actually is and more importantly that your interpretation of these facts as self existing metaphysical entities bears any resemblance to reality or that it even matters one way or another. Please do enlighten me.
[/quote]I don’t know everything and neither do you. But that’s the POINT.
The scientific method is a process of refinement to gain knowledge. It’s this process that brought us modern medicine, modern technology, automobiles, and much more. This is the ONLY thing we have in order to gain knowledge that we can VERIFY to some level or degree. If this method did not work, modern medicine would not be effective, modern technology would not work, and we would still be in the stone age believing our ancestor’s stories without every testing if they are true.
[/quote]Allow me please to make this abundantly clear. I believe the scientific method is valid. I believe the laws of logic and non contradiction are valid. I LOVE science. LOVE IT. Can’t get enough. Over and over and over and over people insist on assuming that because I don’t worship man’s imaginary ability to independently discover knowledge it means I deny that knowledge is being discovered. I have reasons for believing in the validity of science and logic. I’m still waiting to hear yours. Now, if you would be so kind as to see if you can tell me why anything you said in this new last post is true for you without ripping off your creator’s bank to finance your campaign against Him.
BTW, no offense, but you have absolutely no idea just how profound your off the cuff remark about none of us knowing everything actually is. Far from being a universally accepted casual truism that goes in one ear and out the other, it is THE thermonuclear warhead on the intellectual bunker of sinful man. For you see my friend without knowledge of EVERYTHING it is not possible to have true knowledge of ANYTHING. Oh no it’s not. That has been the insurmountable conundrum of the thinking unbeliever since the days of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato. Every God denying work of philosophy in human history ultimately fails right there. Some admit it freely. Science hasn’t earned squat in a self existent vacuum. Please. What is the thought process by which knowledge is even recognized as knowledge at all and why do you trust it. You’ve never once thought about this at this level have you? Don’t feel bad, most Christians haven’t either. That’s changing though.
[/quote]
I’ll be totally honest; I have no idea what you’re talking about in this post.
My original post asked for people to stop comparing SCIENCE to FAITH and gave examples of why they were different (faith => constant unchanging belief, science => earned trust through testing & verification).
It seems to me that you think everything is unknowable. Therefore, we should stop questing what we perceive because it could be wrong or impossible to comprehend. This is intellectually lazy. Even if you don’t fully understand something, that should not stop you from trying to understand it all.
[/quote]
He is pointing out the problem of infinite regress in your claim that if a belief is to be justified(or have it be knowledge) it has to be backed with evidence; this position is called evidentalism. However the problem with this position is that your evidence also has to be justified and so on ad infinitum. Since you brought up that the scientific method is the only way we can know, that statement cannot be proven scientifically and is a self refuting statement.
However does this mean that all your beliefs are not rational since evidentalism runs into the problem of infinite regress? Of course not, there are beliefs that you hold that are rational even though you have no evidence, cannot prove or even the inability to make an argument for them. A few of these beliefs are there are other minds than my own, the world was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age. These beliefs are called properly basic. Tirib is asking about your most foundational beliefs and the proof for them since you brought up the issue of verification. If your evidentalist claim stands then all of our beliefs are irrational. Thus showing classical foundationalism to be self refuting. Those who have a properly basic belief in the God of the bible are justified in using reason and logic.
Tiribulus were you hinting at reformed epistemology in your responses to BackInAction?
