This seems to have come up in another thread where it was said I do not take science seriously. However, I have a strong backing in the sciences as an Engineer.
But, I would submit this to your reading,
The Limits of Science by Peter Medawar, and Oxford immunologist who won the Nobel Prize in medicine.
Here is a quote to just wet your tastes,
"That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer...I have in mind such questions as: How did everything begin? What are we all here for? What is the point of living? Doctrinaire positivism-now something of a period piece-dismissed all such questions as nonquestions or pseudo-questions such as only simpletons ask and only charlatans profess to be able to answer."
Sadly, for Peter Medawar, Doctrinaire positivism is a belief held widely by many (Dawkins is an example in his The God Delusion).
Max Bennett and Peter Hacker in their work, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience argue against the belief of "science explains everything" calling it naive.
Originally posted by AppleChess This seems to have come up in another thread where it was said I do not take science seriously. However, I have a strong backing in the sciences as an Engineer.
But, I would submit this to your reading,
The Limits of Science by Peter Medawar, and Oxford immunologist who won the Nobel Prize in medicine.
Here is a quote to just wet your t ...[text shortened]... sitivism is a belief held widely by many (Dawkins is an example in his The God Delusion).
How everything began is a very interesting question that many scientists wrestle with. What we are all here for can indeed not be answered by science, because any answer we give will be untestable. How will you device experiments that can test the accuracy of your answer, and that others can repeat to duplicate your results? If you can't, it's not really a scientific question.
Originally posted by AppleChess This seems to have come up in another thread where it was said I do not take science seriously. However, I have a strong backing in the sciences as an Engineer.
But, I would submit this to your reading,
The Limits of Science by Peter Medawar, and Oxford immunologist who won the Nobel Prize in medicine.
Here is a quote to just wet your t ...[text shortened]... of Neuroscience[/i] argue against the belief of "science explains everything" calling it naive.
Science has already begun tackling the issue of how everything began, and some possible answers have come up (Big Bang, etc.).
However, it's kind of unfair to point out science's inability to answer philosophical questions as if it's some kind of flaw. That's like faulting sociology for being unable to answer why dolphins are so intelligent.
Originally posted by vivify Science has already begun tackling the issue of how everything began, and some possible answers have come up (Big Bang, etc.).
However, it's kind of unfair to point out science's inability to answer philosophical questions as if it's some kind of flaw. That's like faulting sociology for being unable to answer why dolphins are so intelligent.
It would only be unfair if it wasn't true that many in science claim it is able to answer such questions.
I posted this just for reading really-the book in the first post. Not for discussion. I'm busy enough in the other thread lol
Originally posted by C Hess How everything began is a very interesting question that many scientists wrestle with. What we are all here for can indeed not be answered by science, because any answer we give will be untestable. How will you device experiments that can test the accuracy of your answer, and that others can repeat to duplicate your results? If you can't, it's not really a scientific question.
We do have something that science has tested and that is that life always comes from other life and it is called the Law of Biogenesis. However, science will not be able to test how the original life on Earth began because God did it. 😏
Originally posted by AppleChess It would only be unfair if it wasn't true that many in science claim it is able to answer such questions.
By "in science" I assume you mean scientists. Right? If so, can you give examples of scientists (who aren't religious) that believe science answers the philosophical questions you posted?
Originally posted by AppleChess It would only be unfair if it wasn't true that many in science claim it is able to answer such questions.
I posted this just for reading really-the book in the first post. Not for discussion. I'm busy enough in the other thread lol
One should not confuse some stuff (famous) scientists say in the media with what is actually being done by them and others in the context of scientific research.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra One should not confuse some stuff (famous) scientists say in the media with what is actually being done by them and others in the context of scientific research.
That is were WORLDVIEW rather than science comes in. It's the WORLDVIEW of the atheist evilutionists that is all messed up. 😏
Originally posted by wolfgang59 I was asking you the question. Not asking for youtube links.
I use some Youtube links as training aids to help my students understand and it saves me a lot of typing, which is not my best asset as a good instructor. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds I use some Youtube links as training aids to help my students understand and it saves me a lot of typing, which is not my best asset as a good instructor. 😏
Students who apply critical thinking could learn a lot by challenging the videos and establishing refutations.
Students who accept what they are told uncritically will learn that they were right before they watched the video and indeed that nothing can challenge the authority of their teacher.
This gives their teacher considerable power to influence them in whatever directions may amuse him this week.
The Limits of Science
13 Jun '15 22:171 edit
YouTube
Back to Top