Religion

humblebum

(5,881 posts)

57. Your assertion of special pleading is a vacuous argument in this case.

Reply to laconicsax (Reply #56)

Thu Apr 5, 2012, 02:47 AM

Apr 2012

Recheck your math.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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