Reply #20

In the discussion thread: On science, scientism, and the limits of scientific inquiry... [View all]

Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 07:45 PM

laconicsax (14,860 posts)

20. This subthread was started by one.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

95 replies	Author	Time	Post
On science, scientism, and the limits of scientific inquiry... [View all]	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	OP
what about OTHER ways of knowing.	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#1
I agree with everything you said about science.	Thats my opinion	Mar 2012	#2
Science is a tool to inform, nothing more or less...	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#5
Your solid and thoughtful argument is exactly why we need a a multiple number of voices in these	Thats my opinion	Mar 2012	#8
Ooooohhhh...you win the	skepticscott	Mar 2012	#11
I'm with you on this	longship	Mar 2012	#3
The modern Scientific Method itself is based on the epistemology of	humblebum	Mar 2012	#4
Actually modern scientific method is based on falsifiability, not necessarily logical positivism...	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#6
You expect the science bashers to read Popper?	Odin2005	Mar 2012	#9
I don't think the science bashers show up here	Thats my opinion	Mar 2012	#13
This subthread was started by one.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#20
"Science, as I said, broke from philosophy over 100 years ago" - The Vienna Circle met less than 100	humblebum	Mar 2012	#12
And that has what relevence to my post? n/t	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#14
It has all the relevance in the world, because it reveals your cluelessness	humblebum	Mar 2012	#16
You do realize that science, as a disciplined method predates the Vienna circle, right?	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#17
You really don't have a clue.nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#19
Science is the branch of fantasy that is limited by observation	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#7
I cringe whenever I see the word "scientism" being used.	Odin2005	Mar 2012	#10
We know of several limits to science	bananas	Mar 2012	#15
You seem to be confusing pure mathematics and computational theories with the rest of science...	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#18
No, I'm not confusing anything.	bananas	Mar 2012	#22
It does help	skepticscott	Mar 2012	#23
Does praying over operating systems improve their security?	Silent3	Mar 2012	#25
That last question in your post is a ...	SamG	Mar 2012	#26
"God of the Gaps"....	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#27
Thanks! I had it backwards.	SamG	Mar 2012	#28
Absolutely - and the phase of the moon is very important, too.	bananas	Apr 2012	#36
"No one is saying science knows everything, that science can solve all problems"	bananas	Apr 2012	#39
I take that comment you quote from the OP...	Silent3	Apr 2012	#41
Give us some examples of how	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#87
I hope you're giving bonus points for anecdotes and double points for confirmation bias!	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#94
You should read "one of Scientific American’s most classic articles"	bananas	Apr 2012	#40
The major limitation of science is its refusal to make stuff up	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#21
A great cartoon summary is often so	SamG	Mar 2012	#24
Yeh, like trying to change the definition of nothingness. nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#29
It's called a self-correcting process.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#30
I'm so glad that you admit that it has been changed. However, in this case	humblebum	Apr 2012	#31
I've admitted nothing I haven't already claimed.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#32
By george, I think you are beginning to understand it.	humblebum	Apr 2012	#33
I think you're confused.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#34
It's quite simple really. Something does not equal nothing. nt	humblebum	Apr 2012	#35
I accept your apology. n/t	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#37
Good. Then since we know that something exists where the	humblebum	Apr 2012	#38
Nope, experimentally verified.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#42
Something still exists in your state of nothingness.	humblebum	Apr 2012	#43
Nope there's nothing there.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#45
If there is any physical reaction in that space at any time, detectable or not,	humblebum	Apr 2012	#50
You couldn't be any more wrong. Here's why:	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#53
Your nothing, sir, still is a something. And you arrived at your defintion of nothing by	humblebum	Apr 2012	#55
That's interesting, especially since I was talking about your definition of "nothing."	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#56
Your assertion of special pleading is a vacuous argument in this case.	humblebum	Apr 2012	#57
Rechecked, it's still special pleading.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#59
The physical event immediately prior to your "spontaneous creation" pretty much	humblebum	Apr 2012	#60
I'm talking about YOUR definition of nothing.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#61
I hate to come to HB's defense at this point, but...	Silent3	Apr 2012	#44
There's a significant problem with your argument.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#46
Hm. I got nothin'... :)	Joseph8th	Apr 2012	#48
I agree with you that you can't properly take a rule observed from within...	Silent3	Apr 2012	#49
This is what I find to be the most humorous part of your argument. You are actually	humblebum	Apr 2012	#52
Since when is my describing what you have done "admitting?"	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#54
What you're describing is "Wu Chi" ("ultimate state of nothingness")	bananas	Apr 2012	#58
"...don't see how invoking gods answers or illuminates...in the slightest" -	humblebum	Apr 2012	#51
Climate modeling is not tea leaf reading. Tea leaf reading is not climate modeling.	Silent3	Apr 2012	#62
So theologians just "make answers up"? Attack #15	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#78
Playing the victim	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#85
How would you explain what it is theologians come up with their answers?	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#88
Seems like you have our friend	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#92
I'll admit a minor amount of fault with this tactic.	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#95
I'm sorry an old cartoon inflames you so much.	laconicsax	Apr 2012	#93
God of the gaps lurks at the cutting edge of science...	Joseph8th	Apr 2012	#47
Love your last paragraph about a "limited window".	SamG	Apr 2012	#63
Where in the world do you get your information.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#64
Last time I looked, it was only "a considerable number of" believers who claimed	SamG	Apr 2012	#65
I do not maintain that the fundamentalists are a small minority.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#66
"they are in the best position to challenge the fundamentalists"	SamG	Apr 2012	#67
Again, you seem to know little about progressive christians and christian groups.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#68
So you have no examples of legislation introduced by anyone other than...	SamG	Apr 2012	#69
See, that's the difference.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#70
So, what, exactly do they do? Roll over and play dead?	SamG	Apr 2012	#71
Start here	cbayer	Apr 2012	#72
I could spend the next five years researching each and every...	SamG	Apr 2012	#73
I have come to the conclusion that nothing I could say would satisfy you.	cbayer	Apr 2012	#74
In other words, you got nothing. Challenged for facts, another	SamG	Apr 2012	#75
You were told multiple times	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#79
personal attack #19 out of bounds except in "religion" nt	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#83
Trust me, you don't want to have me post	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#84
"self-righteous people"...etc personal attack #16	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#80
"work with communities and within movements to promote liberal and progressive causes"	SamG	Apr 2012	#76
this whole post is about "believers"and what they do or do not do. Attack #18	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#82
Yes, so just talking about the actions (or inactions) of believers is also an attack.	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#90
paragraph 2 charicatures believers attack #17	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#81
Are you seriously calling that an attack?	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#89
Those of us who ask questions we believe to be in a addition to science are accused--	Thats my opinion	Apr 2012	#77
By all means, list it	skepticscott	Apr 2012	#86
Any post that doesn't agree with what he/she thinks constitutes an attack.	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#91

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.