2 edits
@kellyjay saidWhy on earth do you never use correct grammar? I for one don't know what you are saying by the above. Exactly what are you saying is "not"? Are you saying scientific inquiry is not a search for truth? If so, you are clearly wrong. If not, what are you saying?
The realm of scientific inquiry is a search for truth is not, which would look into whatever is true.
@humy saidIt should have read, "is it not". My bad.
Why on earth do you never use correct grammar? I for one don't know what you are saying by the above. Exactly what are you saying is "not"? Are you saying scientific inquiry is not a search for truth? If so, you are clearly wrong. If not, what are you saying?
1 edit
@kellyjay saidNo it's not. Science is focused on elucidating a certain type of knowledge. It's concerned with the how, not the why. It's a method for understanding, describing and predicting the natural world, a way to test things.
The realm of scientific inquiry is a search for truth is not, which would look into whatever is true. If you are not interested in truth, but instead use it to protect an ideology, you use it with blinders on.
It's not for everyone, and it's clearly not for the overly dogmatic.
@wildgrass saidYou are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say we are looking to understand all there is to know about the how, just so predictions about the natural world can happen! That is speaking about the how to understand why to make predictions.
No it's not. Science is focused on elucidating a certain type of knowledge. It's concerned with the how, not the why. It's a method for understanding, describing and predicting the natural world, a way to test things.
It's not for everyone, and it's clearly not for the overly dogmatic.
@kellyjay saidthat doesn't make sense...
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say we are looking to understand all there is to know about the how, just so predictions about the natural world can happen! That is speaking about the how to understand why to make predictions.
@wildgrass saidNot surprising. Understanding something is grasping for the why it does what it does. How is just the mechanics of it.
that doesn't make sense...
@sonhouse saidYour issue is like the example someone used when describing a Ford motor reason for being, one explanation is the laws governing the motors functions, while the other Henry Ford. They are both correct and neither voids the importance of the other.
@KellyJay
Mechanics of things are good enough for us. We don't need a hyptothetical deity to sully our understanding.
@kellyjay saidIn the mind of the religious only.
Your issue is like the example someone used when describing a Ford motor reason for being, one explanation is the laws governing the motors functions, while the other Henry Ford. They are both correct and neither voids the importance of the other.