Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
If it is objective, independently verifiable, and internally self-consistent, then it is science … and 'belief' becomes redundant.
|
Agreed. However, belief isn't made redundant because of this. It becomes part of the paradigm and that is all too obvious when you look at how science is promoted even by those that do science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Science never calls for 'proof', thus it says nothing about 'true' or 'false'.
Proof does exist internally within mathematical axiom-based systems, which rigorously define the conditions for distinguishing 'true' and 'false', before operations commence.
|
Science calls for evidence, either way. The veracity of that evidence comes from the experimental testing of hypotheses and then theory is based on the tested evidence. However, that evidence and theory is taken for proof all too often by both scientists and non scientists alike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Apart from pure mathematical systems, 'true/false' only has meaning in faith-based dogma. Those who speak in this sense, are coming religious/faith based dogma.
|
And you don't think that science can be dogmatic and faith based??? Open your eyes, Craig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Science never requires 'proof' … thus it says nothing about 'true' or 'false'. In general usage, these only have meaning in faith based dogma.
Frankly, if you don't recognise these fundamentals which distinguish science from religion, then you don't speak on behalf of, nor represent science in any way, shape or form.
Cheers
|
Strictly speaking, science doesn't require proof, but it's proof it gets and gives out....all the time. You only have to listen to some scientists to see where they're coming from. Read a few of the textbooks and you'll see plenty of assumptions/theories that are taken as gospel truths, so to speak.
You can be a little condescending at times and a tad over zealous about your own "beliefs" about what science is or isn't, Craig. You have to remember, I am a scientist. I do know, or at least have some inkling of what I'm talking about. Whether that be the philosophical aspects of science or otherwise. Nothing in science is as clear cut and objective as you would like to think. Nor can you deny that the feelings and prejudices of those that do science don't cloud it in any way. Despite of all the laudable indifference and objectivity the scientific method supposedly holds true to. In any case, the scientific method is just as open to interpretation as any other method or tool used by people to study anything in question. There have been many, many heated debates about this in the past, as well as in the present. It even goes to the core of peer review and its efficacy. You could debate until the cows come home about objectivity, self consistency and verifiability and never get total agreement on any of those points. You may get a consensus of
opinion on the general points but you'll get endless arguments over the degrees and levels of each and how applicable they are in any number of situations etc etc etc. I've been in those arguments, especially sitting at the coffee table in staff rooms and in classes. It's great fun when you're in a talk/debate/discussion with creationists, which I have been on a few occasions, and have debated the very applicability of objectivity, etc, with them, where it concerns their beliefs. Can get rather heated
