Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (18427)	7/17/2001 7:12:13 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I see no differnce between accepting the bible as revealed truth and accepting the principles of science as revealed truth Can you name a principle of science that is accepted by any scientist as revealed truth? If there was no difference, it wouldn't matter if you took a sick child to a doctor or to a priest. But when your children are sick, you take them to a doctor. That's because deep down inside, you know there is a difference, and when push comes to shove and it really means something, you choose science over religion. As any reasonable person would.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (18427)	7/18/2001 7:59:11 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Sigh. I'm sure you're doing this as some fatuous form of philosophical or metaphysical challenge. It's tedious and I'd have thought it beneath you. Yes, we believe what we believe. That's not the issue of science or scientists. Last time. Objective. Testable. Observable. Independently verifiable. Reproducible. Yielding predictions which can themselves be observed, tested and verified. Science fits the above list. Das Kapital (among other things) outlines a theory, describing how human behaviour and economics interact. Although human behaviour is currently not truly scientifically predictable, nor was the USSR exactly a scientific 'testbed' (not isolated, not reproducible, subject to untested variables, etc...) to some extent the theory has been tested... and fails. Therefore it was not good science. Those who do still take it on faith, and believe as though it were true, suffer the usual consequences of those who rely on a false theory. Faith does not fit the list. Defining science as 'received wisdom' is a straw man. It is accepted because of the above reasons. Not because of the untestable vision of a single ancient man, as filtered and distorted by others into a still-untestable form. Believe what and as you wish. Science will still advance and we will understand more of the behaviour and history of the universe. I'll drop this for now because I'm bored by you and I'm certain you're only arguing your case to annoy. I'll come back if I see a return to reality (or a strikingly unintelligent claim waiting to be slapped).