Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Martinus]

I disagree. In science (even social science), method counts as much as the final result. The quality of the method determines how rigid or flexible the system is, and how receptive it is to improvements. The CSS method allows for much better debate than "what does the Bible really say" (not to mention the latter is quite ridiculous for anyone who does not consider the Bible to be divinely inspired, whereas the CSS is interface compatible with "atheistic" sciences).

Edit: this was in response to Beeb.

Well ultimately the point of Christian theology isn't to determine what the Bible says, but rather what God says.

And who on earth said that Protestant theology was incompatible with science?  And who ever described science as "atheistic"?

I said atheistic sciences. There are scientific theories that are atheistic, surely you will agree that? My point was that a CSS theorist could very well discuss it with an atheist social scientist - whereas someone who is about "interpreting the Bible" would be considered ridiculous.

[DGuller]

I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread.

[crazy canuck]

I said atheistic sciences. There are scientific theories that are atheistic, surely you will agree that? My point was that a SCC theorist could very well discuss it with an atheist social scientist - whereas someone who is about "interpreting the Bible" would be considered ridiculous.

I have no idea what you just said.

What is an atheistic theory of science?

What does the Supreme Court of Canada have to do with this?

Why is it considered ridiculous that someone who interprets the Bible can also have a good scientific discussion.  The ridiculous statement would be that anyone who believes in God cannot also be a good scientist - lets just right off Enstein as being incapable of having a good scientific discussion shall we?

[Martinus]

I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art.  Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?

Get 1 Marty Point for a horrendously inappropriate analogy.

The reason you are so bad at analogies is you have trouble recognizing when one is apt.

Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:

1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.
2. Still, in the terms of technique, more modern works of art are usually superior to older ones (hence, a painting by Van Gogh is, artistically, better than a drawing on an ancient Greek vase).
3. In works of art, value of the piece is to a large extent determined by its age, as opposed to its objective aesthetic and/or artistic value. In fact, even in science, a manuscript of Leonardo's flying machine would be worth more than a blueprint of Boeing 737 - but that does not mean that Leonardo's design is technologically superior.

[Ed Anger]

I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread.

[crazy canuck]

Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:

1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.

I knew it wouldnt take long

philosophy has nothing to do with laws of science which is why Raz's analogy is apt.  Your fundamental misunderstanding once again leads you astray.  But feel free to make another analogy.  It should be amusing.

[Neil]

I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread.

Do you think so?  I think it's pretty much just been Viking's usual blitz against religion, with a rotating crew of posters chipping away at his more blatant overreactions.

[Martinus]

I said atheistic sciences. There are scientific theories that are atheistic, surely you will agree that? My point was that a SCC theorist could very well discuss it with an atheist social scientist - whereas someone who is about "interpreting the Bible" would be considered ridiculous.

I have no idea what you just said.

What is an atheistic theory of science?

What does the Supreme Court of Canada have to do with this?

Why is it considered ridiculous that someone who interprets the Bible can also have a good scientific discussion.  The ridiculous statement would be that anyone who believes in God cannot also be a good scientist - lets just right off Enstein as being incapable of having a good scientific discussion shall we?

I meant CSS, it was a typo. Einstein wasn't religious - it's a myth / a bunch of misinterpreted quotes. Not sure who Enstein was though.

[Razgovory]

Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:

1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.
2. Still, in the terms of technique, more modern works of art are usually superior to older ones (hence, a painting by Van Gogh is, artistically, better than a drawing on an ancient Greek vase).
3. In works of art, value of the piece is to a large extent determined by its age, as opposed to its objective aesthetic value. In fact, even in science, a manuscript of Leonardo's flying machine would be worth more than a blueprint of Boeing 737 - but that does not mean that Leonardo's design is technologically superior.

Philosophy isn't governed by the same laws as the science.  That was the point.  Philosophy is more like art then it is science.

[crazy canuck]

I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread.

Do you think so?  I think it's pretty much just been Viking's usual blitz against religion, with a rotating crew of posters chipping away at his more blatant overreactions.

Lets not forget Marti adding even more comedic value.

[DGuller]

I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread.

Do you think so?  I think it's pretty much just been Viking's usual blitz against religion, with a rotating crew of posters chipping away at his more blatant overreactions.

Nah, I just wanted to say something profound, but I didn't want to read through 6 pages of horseshit.

[Martinus]

Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:

1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.
2. Still, in the terms of technique, more modern works of art are usually superior to older ones (hence, a painting by Van Gogh is, artistically, better than a drawing on an ancient Greek vase).
3. In works of art, value of the piece is to a large extent determined by its age, as opposed to its objective aesthetic value. In fact, even in science, a manuscript of Leonardo's flying machine would be worth more than a blueprint of Boeing 737 - but that does not mean that Leonardo's design is technologically superior.

Philosophy isn't governed by the same laws as the science.  That was the point.  Philosophy is more like art then it is science.

Nope. Philosophy is a science, not an art.

[AnchorClanker]

Marty - Philosophy is not a science.  It can deal with science, but is not science itself.

[crazy canuck]

Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:

1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.
2. Still, in the terms of technique, more modern works of art are usually superior to older ones (hence, a painting by Van Gogh is, artistically, better than a drawing on an ancient Greek vase).
3. In works of art, value of the piece is to a large extent determined by its age, as opposed to its objective aesthetic value. In fact, even in science, a manuscript of Leonardo's flying machine would be worth more than a blueprint of Boeing 737 - but that does not mean that Leonardo's design is technologically superior.

Philosophy isn't governed by the same laws as the science.  That was the point.  Philosophy is more like art then it is science.

Nope. Philosophy is a science, not an art.

Raz had the right idea - <backs away slowly>

[Martinus]

Marty - Philosophy is not a science.  It can deal with science, but is not science itself.

I disagree. It is a study of certain fundamental concepts and uses rational argument. It is capable of building on older concepts and developing them. As such, it can formulate theories.

It may be not a natural science, but it is a science nonetheless. It is part of humanities, which includes other social/human sciences, such as history, sociology etc.