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: Solon who wrote (46198)	4/4/2002 9:07:25 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Science explains things with a high probability of truth, and science meets with consensus. Really? How exactly are you defining science? The National Academy of Science, which you have cited as the apex of top scientific minds, includes in its membership economists, political scientists, and social scientists. Do you think your characterization of "consensus" applies to these scientists? Are you claiming that there is "consensus" among all economists? Do you feel that all political scientists are in constant agreement with one another? Are you asserting that all behavioral scientists are in consensus and explain things with a high probability of truth? (Have you ever watched a trial where scientific experts called by the defense AND by the prosecution testify about a defendant's claim of insanity?) Please explain your definition of "science."

To: Solon who wrote (46198)	4/4/2002 10:03:11 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

Once again, I will refrain from a hasty response, and answer in due course.

To: Solon who wrote (46198)	4/4/2002 11:06:06 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

This is what he said: Being a scientist also means that I have great faith in science as a system of obtaining communicable knowledge that is very likely to be true. Not only is it the best system I know of, it's the only system. When people tell me that they have some way of obtaining true knowledge that is outside the realm of competence of science, and that I should believe that knowledge to be true, I am not only doubtful, I become suspicious, wary, and concerned. A miracle is something that contravenes the natural order. Miracles, if they occur, do so infrequently. Of course experimental results reflect the natural order. On the other hand, there are results that are not readily explained by known natural mechanisms, like the several dozen cases of healing at Lourdes that seem to have no possible natural basis, and, in those cases, it is merely a matter of faith that some naturalistic explanation will be found eventually. His objections have nothing to do with the issue, in any event, since it does not turn upon fancied miracles, but upon the limits of science to provide a satisfactory account of the universe, as I tried to explain. I am afraid that the concept of entropy cannot bear the weight you wish to place on it. The entire physical universe might have a beginning and an end, and nevertheless have an implicit purpose. I am merely referring to philosophical/theological reflection, which, as I pointed out, is more comprehensive than science and provides a way of addressing claims of revelation, or making sense of accepted traditions. I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree.......