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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3246)	12/22/2016 7:12:45 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360351

What if they claim a young earth, only a few thousand years old, which is not even arguable let alone true. That is a central tenet of Creationism. Not so much in Creation Science, which is willing to push it out to tens of thousands of years.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3246)	12/22/2016 7:15:15 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 360351

>>>What if they claim a young earth, only a few thousand years old, which is not even arguable let alone true. Does that trigger your whoop threshold?<<< It might give me a little whoop but not a big one. I'm from the church of "wtf does it have to do with me?" I like discussions about time and eternity but just for the exercise. I really wouldn't feel much different if I found out the end of time comes up in a couple of years vs my soul will persist for eternity. Ok, maybe a little different but if they told me dinosaurs are a big hoax ... I'd probably go ... ehhh

To: Lane3 who wrote (3246)	12/22/2016 7:29:01 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360351

But what if we turn the question around:”Is science a religion?” or “Is science a belief?” The philosophy of science makes no claims to knowledge about the supernatural or metaphysical and, by not so doing, is left with an enterprise that although hugely successful is also permanently on probation. The only thing scientists can agree upon is the empirical nature of science, but the steps from observations to theory are not without philosophical problems. Thomas Kuhn thinks that scientific paradigms are essentially pictures of the world that are consistent with observations and logically coherent. But such pictures are necessarily always incomplete – at least until such time as we know everything – and our minds seem to struggle to accept this; it seems like there is an aesthetic compulsion to create harmonious images, even if that means filling in the spaces with metaphysical constructs. If both the sciences and religions are mental constructs are they both being sustained by human beliefs? Moving away from speculative into natural philosophy, what do we actually mean by having a belief? science20.com