21 Feb '14 06:07Originally posted by lemon limePlease define 'science'. It seems to me that 'a logical and common-sense methodology' would be science by definition.
"...can anyone explain these observations using a logical and common-sense methodology, without referring to science, links to science websites, journals etc., or scientific jargon?"
21 Feb '14 06:28Originally posted by twhiteheadI was quoting GB, but technically you are right. However, the way most people think about science today bears little resemblance to what might have been called science a thousand or so years ago. The kalam cosmological argument for example relied almost solely on reasoning and logic, and testing was limited to the use of logical and mathematical proofs. Science is actually an offshoot of philosophy, but at one time they were considered to be one and the same.
Please define 'science'. It seems to me that 'a logical and common-sense methodology' would be science by definition.
21 Feb '14 07:21Originally posted by lemon limeIf I were to explain the motion of the earth relative to the motion of an aeroplane in 'a logical and common-sense methodology' would that not be science? The scientific method requires that such an explanation be verified via observation/experiment etc, but it seems to me that the initial explanation itself is also part of science, and the reason we know it is the correct explanation is also due to science and the scientific method.
I was quoting GB, but technically you are right. However, the way most people think about science today bears little resemblance to what might have been called science a thousand or so years ago. The kalam cosmological argument for example relied almost solely on reasoning and logic, and testing was limited to the use of logical and mathematical pr ...[text shortened]... actually an offshoot of philosophy, but at one time they were considered to be one and the same.
21 Feb '14 07:22Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMore nonsense. 🙄
1. Vibration of the vehicle over road imperfections;
2. the sound and sense of the vehicle's engine's rpms;
3. force of gravity on the seat back.
4: "Kinesthesia - n. The sense that detects bodily position, weight,
or movement of the muscles, tendons, and joints."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kinesthesia
21 Feb '14 07:32Originally posted by lemon limeThe author was writing to an audience of atheist; your insertion of "anyone" makes sense here.
The overarching question is interesting enough, and relevant, but I'd like to change one word in it for the sake of not having to watch tidy whities twisting into a knot... no one wants to see that.
"...can anyone explain these observations using a logical and common-sense methodology, without referring to science, links to science websites, journals etc., or scientific jargon?"
21 Feb '14 07:40Originally posted by wolfgang59Originally posted by lemon lime
More nonsense. 🙄
Remember: you are tying to substantiate your assertion
that one can "feel" themselves travelling at 70mph.
1. That's vibration you feel [b]not 70 mph
2. That's the sound of the engine you hear not 70 mph
3. That's just nonsense! How can you feel gravity on the seat back????
4. And this is relevant because ............ ...[text shortened]... demonstrated your stupidity enough, if
you want more answers go ask one of your grand-children.[/b]
22 Feb '14 06:07Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the point here is that science is a specifically defined "logical and common-sense methodology". If you want to call any logical and common-sense methodology "science" you can of course do that, but eliminating the distinction between science and any other good methodology will create a few problems. For example, if philosophy can also be called science then why is it called philosophy? Why isn't it simply called science? If we eliminate the distinction then there is no need to call it anything else.
If I were to explain the motion of the earth relative to the motion of an aeroplane in 'a logical and common-sense methodology' would that not be science? The scientific method requires that such an explanation be verified via observation/experiment etc, but it seems to me that the initial explanation itself is also part of science, and the reason we know ...[text shortened]... ue, and you won't know it is true, unless I use the scientific method to verify that it is true.
22 Feb '14 06:43Originally posted by lemon limeOK, so lets hear your philosophical explanation for the relative motion of aeroplanes to the earth.
I think the point here is that science is a specifically defined "logical and common-sense methodology". If you want to call any logical and common-sense methodology "science" you can of course do that, but eliminating the distinction between science and any other good methodology will create a few problems. For example, if philosophy can also be c ...[text shortened]... efinition of science in the same way I assume all apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples.
22 Feb '14 09:01Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure what your point is or what it has to do with the OP. How would you define the science of logical or observational incongruities?
OK, so lets hear your philosophical explanation for the relative motion of aeroplanes to the earth.
It is my contention that science is the philosophical explanation combined with the practice of verifying that the explanation matches reality.
I believe the OP, doesn't actually ask for the verification part ie it doesn't ask for the results of observati ...[text shortened]... heless, you cannot explain motion without the concept of motion - which is a scientific concept.
22 Feb '14 10:17Originally posted by lemon limeNo, not at all. I am saying that any such explanations, would nowadays be considered part of science. Science is the study and explanation of the world around us. Any explanation of the world around us is therefore part of science. To explain it without science is a violation of the definition.
I hope you are not suggesting no one was able to explain motion before there were scientists, or that people did not know if they exist or not until philosophers came along to explain it to them.
In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.
22 Feb '14 21:344 editsOriginally posted by twhiteheadJust to be clear I don't have a problem with science. I have a problem with scientists (or anyone for that matter) who make absurd assumptions about what other people believe. The flat earth idea for example was a minority idea at one time and not embraced by many people. But now it's held up as an example of what most people believed. So I cringe whenever I hear someone say science has proven the world is not flat when most people didn't believe it was flat in the first place. Science may have proven it's not flat, but it's a lie to say that most people at one time believed it was.
No, not at all. I am saying that any such explanations, would nowadays be considered part of science. Science is the study and explanation of the world around us. Any explanation of the world around us is therefore part of science. To explain it without science is a violation of the definition.
I am using from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc ...[text shortened]... around the world, will in fact, be drawing on the knowledge you have obtained from said science.
22 Feb '14 23:45Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"
"Post Number:#1 November 6th, 2013, 1:53 pm... I have often wondered why atheists are so concerned with what theists believe? Appeals to absurdity are a common formulaic method used in order to dispel theistic notions and ideas. However, if we are to remove the evidence which pertains to scientific explanations, and rely upon our actual observations of the world, science begins to demonstrate some of its own logical incongruities. I will list some examples of observations that science has explanations for, yet can appear to the observer to be logically incongruent. Please remember that we are discussing observational logic; and not scientific evidence:
1. If one was to board a plane from a position opposite to Australia, how would that plane reach Australia, without nose-diving, twisting in mid-air and flying upside-down?
2. How can 8 planets all rotate around the sun together, and all remain in relatively the same position, without being actually physically attached together in any way?
3. How can the earth rotate at 1040 mph and we don't feel it? Yet if we are moving at even 70 mph we feel ourselves racing?
4. If a passenger plane flies at 500-600 mph why does it feel as though you're doing 30 in the slow lane? Even when you look at a plane in the sky, it appears to be doing 50 mph maximum.
5. If the earth rotates at 1040 mph, when you are in a plane moving at 500-600 mph, in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, why don't you see the earth rotating at that 1040 mph in the other direction?
6. If you're travelling from England to Poland, and your flight departs at 18:00 hrs, the plane travels 500 mph, with the earth rotating at 1040 mph, at what time will you reach your destination? (please include the calculations for scrutiny) I mean, if the earth is rotating at over double the speed you're flying at, how would you reach Poland, without Poland continually over-taking you, and how would you land and stop unless you exceeded the speed of the earth, or the earth stopped-spinning?
All of these observations produce some incongruence for logic and common-sense. So my question here is, can any atheist explain these observations using a logical and common-sense methodology, without referring to science, links to science websites, journals etc., or scientific jargon?
My aim here is not to dismiss science, as I tend to believe much of what science posits as true / correct, but if you take away the pictures, videos, diagrams and text-books, scientific explanations can appear as fantastical to the mind and observation, as those of a religious nature. Furthermore, if we explore some of quantum mechanics theories, it is akin to going deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole, and not expecting to meet the mad hatter (nonsensical conclusions). Thus, I just wanted to put a few ideas out there and also present a challenge for the hyper-intelligent atheists on the forum (theists are welcome to answer too!).
P.S. No flames please, we are all learning here."
"The path to a great life is found by utilising the power of light, love, truth and goodness E.Bedeau. For Queen & Country, dark knight of the realm." http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10285
23 Feb '14 22:20Originally posted by Grampy Bobby[/b]I think it has been established that non of these questions are difficult to explain.So why keep re-posting them?Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[b]"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are welcome too)"
"Post Number:#1 November 6th, 2013, 1:53 pm... I have often wondered why atheists are so concerned with what theists believe? Appeals to absurdity are a common formulaic method used in order to dispel theistic notions and ...[text shortened]... k knight of the realm." http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10285
"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are..."
Back to Top