Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I forget what was exactly said, but a poster was saying that intuition trumps the scientific method and that the scientific method isn't all it's cracked up to be. I find this rather ironic since the poster was typing on a computer which was invented by using the scientific method. People who accept such a mentality probably also have a television, use ovens, electricity, cars, medicine, anti biotics etc. If the scientific method isn't good at finding the truth then why do those who think intuition trumps the scientific method go right out and use all of these scientific/technological advances that were invented through use of the scientific method.
By the way, using anti biotics only proves evolution.
I forget what was exactly said, but a poster was saying that intuition trumps the scientific method and that the scientific method isn't all it's cracked up to be. I find this rather ironic since the poster was typing on a computer which was invented by using the scientific method. People who accept such a mentality probably also have a television, use ovens, electricity, cars, medicine, anti biotics etc. If the scientific method isn't good at finding the truth then why do those who think intuition trumps the scientific method go right out and use all of these scientific/technological advances that were invented through use of the scientific method.
By the way, using anti biotics only proves evolution.
Well for one thing, I don't agree with that. I've repeatedly mentioned on various threads how great and advanced human beings have become as scientist to get to the technological things and age we are in now. However, my own little philosphy I live by, is that I don't put my trust, intuition, and beliefs in man. You'd have to be pretty insecure to do something like that. Not only are you demeaning yourself and putting down your own self morals but your putting Scientist (people like you and I) before you and putting them on a pedastool to make it seem that their studies, ideologies, technologies, are much greater and smarter than your own human logic and life experience. And I don't think it is. I say "I don't think" because I haven't had much life experience to begin with. I'm just a teenager transitioning to adulthood. But I know the majority of you have. So I would think that with so many people with much experience would learn to happily integrate Science studies in part with what you have learned in life and your opinions.
Well for one thing, I don't agree with that. I've repeatedly mentioned on various threads how great and advanced human beings have become as scientist to get to the technological things and age we are in now. However, my own little philosphy I live by, is that I don't put my trust, intuition, and beliefs in man. You'd have to be pretty insecure to do something like that. Not only are you demeaning yourself and putting down your own self morals but your putting Scientist (people like you and I) before you and putting them on a pedastool to make it seem that their studies, ideologies, technologies, are much greater and smarter than your own human logic and life experience. And I don't think it is. I say "I don't think" because I haven't had much life experience to begin with. I'm just a teenager transitioning to adulthood. But I know the majority of you have. So I would think that with so many people with much experience would learn to happily integrate Science studies in part with what you have learned in life and your opinions.
What would you do if I handed you a grenade with the pin pulled? Would you throw it away from you before it exploded or would you wait to see what would happen because you don't trust the science behind explosive devices and you haven't personally exprienced a grenade blowing up in your hand? Your vaunted trust in "life experience" won't help you much, little one.
I forget what was exactly said, but a poster was saying that intuition trumps the scientific method and that the scientific method isn't all it's cracked up to be. I find this rather ironic since the poster was typing on a computer which was invented by using the scientific method. People who accept such a mentality probably also have a television, use ovens, electricity, cars, medicine, anti biotics etc. If the scientific method isn't good at finding the truth then why do those who think intuition trumps the scientific method go right out and use all of these scientific/technological advances that were invented through use of the scientific method.
By the way, using anti biotics only proves evolution.
That was me ag sol.
#1 I was sprinkling sand down your collar...I even admitted it. So I don't see where this is coming from...BUT:
Why would a determination of one platform over the another for assessing the accuracy and merit of information, require a complete prohibition of using the one you determined to be the lessor? What kind of ridiculous premise is that? How wise would that be?
I thought that post you put up in the thread that was closed was just a "crank" in retaliation to mine...but now you are even starting a new thread with this absurd premise.
If you are going to put up an argument...at least try to propose something reasonable and sensible...Moderator cut: deleted due to insult
So... is it just THIS issue? Or do you think that any time you pick anything or anybody over another...you then have to totally dismiss the one you didn't pick, and any derivative benefit you might get from it as well?
Well for one thing, I don't agree with that. I've repeatedly mentioned on various threads how great and advanced human beings have become as scientist to get to the technological things and age we are in now. However, my own little philosphy I live by, is that I don't put my trust, intuition, and beliefs in man. You'd have to be pretty insecure to do something like that. Not only are you demeaning yourself and putting down your own self morals but your putting Scientist (people like you and I) before you and putting them on a pedastool to make it seem that their studies, ideologies, technologies, are much greater and smarter than your own human logic and life experience. And I don't think it is. I say "I don't think" because I haven't had much life experience to begin with. I'm just a teenager transitioning to adulthood. But I know the majority of you have. So I would think that with so many people with much experience would learn to happily integrate Science studies in part with what you have learned in life and your opinions.
I have to say that I don't see that any scientist would "make it seem that their studies, ideologies, technologies, are much greater and smarter than your own human logic and life experience" If by that it is meant logic and life experience in general, since it is pretty clear that someone with expertise in electrical engineering or brickwork is surely to more trusted in those areas than you or me, since we don't have the expertise.
So I agree with this:
"So I would think that with so many people with much experience would learn to happily integrate Science studies in part with what you have learned in life and your opinions."
Right, but as I have said before, our impressions and perceptions can mislead us. What can be empirically verified must be given credence even if it doesn't look like that to us.
I forget what was exactly said, but a poster was saying that intuition trumps the scientific method and that the scientific method isn't all it's cracked up to be. I find this rather ironic since the poster was typing on a computer which was invented by using the scientific method.
Somehow this feels a bit specious. Let's say a person puts intuition above science. Let's say they even think technology on the whole does more harm than good. It doesn't necessarily follow they therefore reject all science and technology.
If I say our government isn't all it's cracked up to be and that I'd rather live under the Irish or Australian government, the failure to move to Ireland or Australia isn't necessarily ironic. It may just mean I don't have the resources to move or that I have commitments here.
If the man said that intuition is better than science in a pamphlet made from papyrus and using natural ink you wouldn't be reading it. So they may accept this medium reaches more people without embracing everything behind it.
Also I think you're conflating science and technology a tad too much. Neolithic people had technology, but I don't think it'd be accurate to say they had the scientific method. Or at least you'd have to stretch it a bit to justify that.
Somehow this feels a bit specious. Let's say a person puts intuition above science. Let's say they even think technology on the whole does more harm than good. It doesn't necessarily follow they therefore reject all science and technology.
True, but it's a bit like saying that a bod is quite happy with science and technology - until it conflicts with his Faith - then it has to take second place.
Quote:
If I say our government isn't all it's cracked up to be and that I'd rather live under the Irish or Australian government, the failure to move to Ireland or Australia isn't necessarily ironic. It may just mean I don't have the resources to move or that I have commitments here.
No quarrel with that.
Quote:
If the man said that intuition is better than science in a pamphlet made from papyrus and using natural ink you wouldn't be reading it. So they may accept this medium reaches more people without embracing everything behind it.
Also I think you're conflating science and technology a tad too much. Neolithic people had technology, but I don't think it'd be accurate to say they had the scientific method. Or at least you'd have to stretch it a bit to justify that.
It could be argued that one might be in danger of separating science and technology a tad too much. Technology is fine. cars and computers are well enough, as they don't challenge my Deeply Held intuitive beliefs, but any of the ideas in the corpus of knowledge that produced the technology I rely on without question, if it conflicts with my beliefs, must be considered invalid.
The scientific method is a way of finding things out. Technology uses the same method: although it was sufficient for stone tools without asking 'Why', that was not good enough, even in the Steam engine age. One had to ask 'Why and how' to solve the technological problems.
The How and why that is the basis of our technology is also the how and why of our history, astronomy, physics and palaeontology; and it is a tad too particular to go along with it until it doesn't suit one's personal feelings about the Voices in the head, the wish that Auntie Lucy is still around even though you know she's dead and the belief in a divine being that one has been taught.
Then, just in those particular areas, one doesn't go along with it, even though the How and Why behind it is just as good.
I forget what was exactly said, but a poster was saying that intuition trumps the scientific method and that the scientific method isn't all it's cracked up to be. I find this rather ironic since the poster was typing on a computer which was invented by using the scientific method. People who accept such a mentality probably also have a television, use ovens, electricity, cars, medicine, anti biotics etc. If the scientific method isn't good at finding the truth then why do those who think intuition trumps the scientific method go right out and use all of these scientific/technological advances that were invented through use of the scientific method.
By the way, using anti biotics only proves evolution.
I think intuition is important and I think that science is important. I think many scientist use intuition to discover new things.
Evolution is not science. Applied science is how we get the computers and microwaves we use. That is using testable, repeatable experiments. Evolution is historical science, in that, it is just one story about the past and they attempt to explain what happened using scientific principles. But the past is not repeatable nor is it testable. So all we have is tests that we can do in the present. So, even if we can create life in a test tube or create strains of bacteria that show an evolutionary change, these are all done in the present and do not prove what may have happened in the past. Since the past is gone no one can prove what happened. All we can get from evolutionary scientists is one interpretation of the evidence found in the present.
Using antibiotics does not prove evolution since evolution cannot be proven.
I think intuition is important and I think that science is important. I think many scientist use intuition to discover new things.
Nope. They use science. Intuition may give them the theory to test, but until it is tested, it is only a theory. When it is tested, repeated, validated and peer -reviewed again and again, predicted conditions pan out and required evidence is forthcoming, when new discoveries tend to confirm, then you can regard the theory as proven.
Quote:
Evolution is not science. Applied science is how we get the computers and microwaves we use. That is using testable, repeatable experiments. Evolution is historical science, in that, it is just one story about the past and they attempt to explain what happened using scientific principles. But the past is not repeatable nor is it testable. So all we have is tests that we can do in the present. So, even if we can create life in a test tube or create strains of bacteria that show an evolutionary change, these are all done in the present and do not prove what may have happened in the past. Since the past is gone no one can prove what happened. All we can get from evolutionary scientists is one interpretation of the evidence found in the present.
Using antibiotics does not prove evolution since evolution cannot be proven.
Evolution is proven as regards the factors given above, no matter how much you may refuse to admit it.
I forget what was exactly said, but a poster was saying that intuition trumps the scientific method and that the scientific method isn't all it's cracked up to be.
If one decides that they can arbitrarily pick and choose to believe or do whatever makes them feel good, why would you be surprised that their arbitrary choices are, well, arbitrary? If they just follow whatever they happen to be feeling at any given time with no regard to anything else, you'd expect their choices to be pretty inconsistent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
