Neutral Science?

Originally posted by Coletti
I think we are talking about two different things. There are Christians who claim to know better than others (other people, other Christians) and this can be annoying. Christians should know better than to make that claim. Having a source of perfect knowledge, and actually holding and understanding that knowledge are two different things. Christians shou ...[text shortened]... know some of them. But no Christian has all knowledge, and can be mistaken in what he believes.

The test for truth is scripture.

🙄

Originally posted by LemonJello
wow, where to begin....haven't you ever heard of fallibilism? knowledge and epistemic justification need not entail certainty -- they may be based on defeasible evidence. your claims here are incredibly bold to a glaring fault. if you are going to play the certainty principle card, then everyone's knowledge is vulnerable, even your own (probably espe ...[text shortened]... er than to one's own belief system. your post demonstrates vistesd's general point perfectly.

I was trying to make it clear the knowledge does not depend on certainty. But we should have some rule for deciding what we feel is certain about (what we claim to know), and what we feel uncertain about. Knowledge itself is independent of certainty.

Originally posted by Coletti

[b]Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A

..it does NOT apply to mathematical proofs or the physics that they can and do describe.

It certainly do if you think mathematic equations reality.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is the scientific method in a nutshell. ...[text shortened]... tural;... it consist of guesses, of hypotheses, rather than of final and certain truths.[/quote][/b]

Is that what passes your test of mathematical proof?
"It certainly do if you think mathematic equations reality." strawman

and so what if you can look up the latin or
Russell :With all due respect to old Bertrand, science does not start by reasoning bread is a stone , or mathematics is the things it describes.
Popper : confuses theory with hypothesis in an effort to prove that you can't disprove a negative

"It in no way diminishes the importance of the chemical bond to know that it arises from quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and the prevalence of temperatures and pressures that allow atoms and molecules to exist. Similarly, it does not diminish the significance of life on Earth to know that it emerged from physics and chemistry and the special historical circumstances permitting the chemical reactions to proceed that produced the ancestral life form and thus initiated biological evolution. Finally, it does not detract from the achievements of the human race, including the triumphs of the human intellect and the glorious works of art that have been produced for tens of thousand of years, to know that our intelligence and self-awareness, greater than those of the other animals, have emerged from the laws of biology plus the specific accidents of hominid evolution."....
Murray Gell Mann

Originally posted by Coletti
I was trying to make it clear the knowledge does not depend on certainty. But we should have some rule for deciding what we feel is certain about (what we claim to know), and what we feel uncertain about. Knowledge itself is independent of certainty.

Knowledge itself is independent of certainty.

if you mean this in the sense that propositional knowledge entails truth, then yes, i agree. that is to say, if one knows that P, then it necessarily follows that P is a true proposition. but even fallibilists will grant this to you. your statement that i was addressing earlier is still complete hogwash IMO.

Originally posted by Coletti
I was trying to make it clear the knowledge does not depend on certainty. But we should have some rule for deciding what we feel is certain about (what we claim to know), and what we feel uncertain about. Knowledge itself is independent of certainty.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.