Neutral Science?

Originally posted by Palynka
The problems could arise if someone questioned how far do we know about the accuracy of such "known laws" and how far do we understand the range of implications behind them. My point is that put it that way, they are similar to dogma if one sees them as the truth. A law that passes testing can still be incomplete (e.g. Newtonian physics) and improved.

I ...[text shortened]... think this is what you meant by "known" but I can see how someone could pick up on that point.

thats why chose those 3 as examples. I'd like to see the math anybody would use to disprove Maxwell equation.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are you some sort of maniac?

You presuppose that science is based on presupposition. Fine. You may presuppose what you want. The mediaval church presupposed that the world was flat and was proven wrong by scientists testing their hypotheses.

So if science is not based on presupposotions, would you mind explaining to me how two different people can look at the same evidence and reach two vastly different conclusions?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So if science is not based on presupposotions, would you mind explaining to me how two different people can look at the same evidence and reach two vastly different conclusions?

Please give an example of 'vastly different conclusions' and I'm sure we'll be happy to oblige with an explaination. It would be useful if your example could avoid the area of creationism and ID because the explaination for 'vastly different conclusions' is simple: the proponents of ID are politically motivated.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So if science is not based on presupposotions, would you mind explaining to me how two different people can look at the same evidence and reach two vastly different conclusions?

I assume you have a point so why don't you just come out with it instead of asking silly questions.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Please give an example of 'vastly different conclusions' and I'm sure we'll be happy to oblige with an explaination. It would be useful if your example could avoid the area of creationism and ID because the explaination for 'vastly different conclusions' is simple: the proponents of ID are politically motivated.

One of the most obvious pressupositions used in science is an interpretation of evidence based on the TOE. You can basically find any evidence to support whatever you want to prove, based on how you want it to be.

For instance, if someone believes they evolved by chance, then you need to point out that their processes of logic—of thinking—also evolved by chance. So ultimately, they can’t be sure they are even asking the right questions … let alone understanding the answers...

Originally posted by dj2becker
For instance, if someone believes they evolved by chance, then you need to point out that their processes of logic—of thinking—also evolved by chance. So ultimately, they can’t be sure they are even asking the right questions … let alone understanding the answers...

Oh, so that's what it's all about.

Darwin's question on the Galapagos islands was why do these birds have such unusual beaks. Was that a bad question?

Do you dismiss all science in principle or is it just the TOE that you have a beef with?

Originally posted by dj2becker
One of the most obvious pressupositions used in science is an interpretation of evidence based on the TOE. You can basically find any evidence to support whatever you want to prove, based on how you want it to be.

For instance, if someone believes they evolved by chance, then you need to point out that their processes of logic—of thinking—also evolved ...[text shortened]... can’t be sure they are even asking the right questions … let alone understanding the answers...

Now lets try again you maniac. Lets have an example that steers clear of creationism / ID etc as requested.

The reason ID 'scientists' come to different conclusions is that they are working to an agenda. So are you.

Please give an example that steers clear of your usual axe grinding territory.

As for your assertion then its the usual facile rubbish I've come to expect

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Oh, so that's what it's all about.

Darwin's question on the Galapagos islands was why do these birds have such unusual beaks. Was that a bad question?

Do you dismiss all science in principle or is it just the TOE that you have a beef with?

The only problem I have with Science is if it is made to be the ultimate truth. Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang are the theories that students are taught as empirical facts.

Originally posted by frogstomp
thats why chose those 3 as examples. I'd like to see the math anybody would use to disprove Maxwell equation.

It's indifferent, you just gave those as examples.

I'm not going to pretend I have a full understanding of the maths or the physics behind Maxwell's equations but who's to say if they are impossible to improve? A GUT would surely introduce a new light on electromagnetism...

Originally posted by dj2becker
The only problem I have with Science is if it is made to be the ultimate truth. Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang are the theories that students are taught as empirical facts.

I dislike any form of dogma, so I'm in agreement with you on that.

I don't see that evolution necessarily precludes divine activity. What's the big deal if we share a common ancestor with apes and other creatures? Why is that such a challenge to any theist's beliefs?

Originally posted by dj2becker
The only problem I have with Science is if it is made to be the ultimate truth. Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang are the theories that students are taught as empirical facts.

lol. No, the empirical evidence supports the Theory, but nice try.

So, you have a problem with science being demonstrated or presented as truth. Yet, you continually parade your xtian beliefs as some form of undeniable truth, despite the monumental non-existent empirical evidence. Do you see the irony of your post?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Now lets try again you maniac. Lets have an example that steers clear of creationism / ID etc as requested.

The reason ID 'scientists' come to different conclusions is that they are working to an agenda. So are you.

Please give an example that steers clear of your usual axe grinding territory.

As for your assertion then its the usual facile rubbish I've come to expect

Are you saying that the frauds that created the Nebraskan man from an extinct pigs tooth weren't working to an agenda???!!!!

You make me laugh man...

And they guys that go around to schools using tax money to teach evolution as an emperical fact??? Is that no agenda???

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are you saying that the frauds that created the Nebraskan man from an extinct pigs tooth weren't working to an agenda???!!!!

You make me laugh man...

And they guys that go around to schools using tax money to teach evolution as an emperical fact??? Is that no agenda???

And the guys who visit my childrens' school teaching christianity as true?

Sure there's lots of charlatans around.

There are also a large number of respectable researchers working in evolutionary biology

Originally posted by dj2becker
The only problem I have with Science is if it is made to be the ultimate truth. Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang are the theories that students are taught as empirical facts.

Facts are not the ultimate truth for scientists. You can attack this strawman that you built for science all that you want, but it will just show how much you don't know about it.

Edit: Fact as defined by the (American) National Academy of Sciences:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Originally posted by Palynka
Facts are not the ultimate truth for scientists. You can attack this strawman that you built for science all that you want, but it will just show how much you don't know about it.

Edit: Fact as defined by the (American) National Academy of Sciences:

[b]Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purpos ...[text shortened]... is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.[/b]

So basically in Science there is no absolute truth.

I hope more "Scientists" would realise this. Especially the ones that build their beliefs on "Science".