ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE (I)HT to Vox Day...
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Christians; it's too complicated for you to understand. God doesn't exist whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MATTER AND ENERGY
(1) Existence is defined by matter or energy.
(2) (No one is allowed to disagree with that.)
(2) God is not composed of matter or energy.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION (I)
(1) If you cannot agree on a definition of a thing, then it does not exist.
(2) People cannot agree on a definition of God.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM REALITY (I)
(1) Reality is that which I understand as demonstrably true.
(2) I do not understand how the demonstrations that God exists are true.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM REALITY (II), a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM ANTARCTICA
(1) Reality is that which I understand as demonstrably true.
(2) For example, before Antarctica was discovered, its existence was not demonstratable.
(3) Therefore, Antarctica was not real at that point.
(4) Kind of like how God is not real until I believe He is.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION WITHOUT USING PREMISES (I)
(1) I cannot actually prove God does not exist.
(2) But that won't stop me from drawing the following, unexpected conclusion:
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION WITHOUT USING PREMISES (II)
(1) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM UNBELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) But, look, I choose not to believe in Him.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM THOMAS EDISON
(1) Thomas Edison was an atheist.
(2) He invented the lightbulb.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM THE INABILITY TO BELIEVE
(1) I admit there are proofs that God does in fact exist.
(2) But in all honesty, I still can't see how God exists.
(3) This has nothing to do with my bastard father who was never there for me.
(4) So, I'm being rational and yet unable to accept rational arguments that have to do with God.
(5) And until someone explains to me how I'm pulling that off, I'm afraid it's going to be atheism for me.
(6) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION (II)
(1) No one can agree what the definition of "God" is.
(2) But whatever definitions they come up with, none of them will ever work.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION (III)
(1) The philosopher Baruch Spinoza defines God as nature.
(2) Therefore, nature does not exist.
(3) Well, nature exists.
(4) But God does not exist (even if you equate the term "God" with something I believe in).
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION (IV)
(1) The previous argument is ridiculous.
(2) If God is "nature," then of course I believe in "God."
(3) But I'm scared of the word "God."
(4) So, let's just drop the subject.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM SEMANTICS
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "That's just semantics."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM NIT-PICKINESS
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "You're just being nit-picky."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM DISINGENUOUSNESS
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "Now you're being disingenuous."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM WINNING THE ARGUMENT
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "Oh, you're just trying to win the argument."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM LITERALISM
(1) Theist: [Points out a contradiction in the atheist's argument.]
(2) Atheist: "Oh, you're just taking what I say too literally."
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS (I)
(1) God only exists if Christians agree with each other.
(2) Christians do not always agree with each other.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS (II)
(1) Unlike Christians, atheists always agree with each other.
(2) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS (III)
(1) Actually, atheists don't agree on a lot of things.
(2) Atheists don't agree on whether objective morality exists.
(3) Atheists don't agree on whether absolute truth exists.
(4) Atheists don't agree on whether the universe even exists.
(5) Atheists don't agree on whether God exists.
(6) But they all agree on what the atheism is.
(7) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS (IV)
(1) Actually, atheists can't even agree on what atheism is.
(2) "Broad" Atheists disbelieve in all god(s).
(3) "Narrow" Atheists disbelieve in certain god(s).
(4) "Strong" or "Positive" or "Explicit" Atheists claim that there are no god(s).
(5) "Weak" or "Positive" or "Implicit" Atheists merely lack belief that there are god(s).
(6) "Gnostic" Atheists say it's certain that god(s) do not exist.
(7) "Strong" Agnostic Atheists say it's impossible to know if god(s) exist.
(8) "Weak" Agnostic Atheists say it someday might be possible to know if god(s) exist (but not right now).
(9) "Ignostic" or "Igtheistic" Atheists say the term "God" is simply devoid of meaning.
(11) "Pragmatic" Atheists say it's just not important whether God exists.
(11) "Deistic" Atheists say that God exists (but He doesn't do much).
(12) Some atheists think atheism is an opinion.
(13) Some atheists think it's a lack of an opinion.
(14) Some atheists claim that all, some, or none of these qualify as Atheism.
(15) But at least they all call themselves Atheists, and that's what really matters.
(16) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM THE SPANISH INQUISITION
(1) The Spanish Inquisition killed pretty much everybody.
(2) That's right. It killed everybody.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM THE SAGAN STANDARD (I)
(1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
(2) The claim that God exists is extraordinary.
(3) Therefore, any evidence supporting it ought to be extraordinary as well.
(4) I'm not sure what I mean by "extraordinary."
(5) But whatever you come up with, it's not going to work.
(6) Therefore, God does not exist.
SIGMUND FREUD'S ARGUMENT FROM OEDIPUS
(1) The belief in God arises from the unconscious fear that your father is going to castrate you when he finds out you have a desire to sleep with your own mother.
(2) Obviously, only a crazy person would think that.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM INFANTILE INTELLIGENCE (I)
(1) Everyone is born an atheist.
(2) Therefore, we should think like that.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
SAM HARRIS'S IMAGINARY ARGUMENT
(1) Bad things happen.
(2) This means God is impotent, evil, or imaginary.
(3) If God is impotent, then He's not powerful and thus doesn't exist.
(4) If God is evil, then He's not good and thus doesn't exist.
(5) If God is imaginary, then God doesn't exist.
(6) Now some theists claim God allows bad things to happen to bring about a greater good.
(7) This would mean God might still be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and real.
(8) I don't know any rational argument to disprove that.
(9) So, I'll make this appeal to emotion: it's callous to tell people that their suffering is meaningful.
(10) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MODAL LOGIC (II)
(1) I am an atheist.
(2) I do not know what modal logic is.
(3) Any proof for God's existence that uses modal logic is not understood by me.
(4) If I don't understand something, then I can make fun of it.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.
PARENTAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) My daddy told me that God exists.
(2) I hate my daddy.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) There are a lot of false miracles.
(2) Therefore, all miracles could be false.
(3) In fact, yeah, all miracles are false.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (II)
(1) If there is no evidence for God, God does not exist.
(2) {Christian apologist offers the millions of accounts of miracles reported throughout history}
(3) No, even though I obviously haven't investigated all those stories, I know they're all false.
(4) Therefore, there is no evidence for God.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (III)
(1) A person claimed he saw a miracle.
(2) I didn't see the miracle.
(3) Therefore, that person was lying, hallucinating, or is just an frickin' idiot.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (IV)
(1) I saw a miracle.
(2) However, maybe it really wasn't a miracle.
(3) Therefore, I will firmly deny that it was a miracle.
(4) Therefore, all other miracles are also not miracles.
(5) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (V)
(1) There is no evidence for miracles.
(2) The millions of reports of supposed miracles are not evidence.
(3) This is because I'm assuming miracles are impossible.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (VI)
(1) There is lots of evidence for miracles.
(2) But there is no evidence that they were caused by the one true God who created the universe.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (VII)
(1) There is lots of evidence for miracles that involve alleged visions of the one true God who created the universe.
(2) Still, it could all be crap.
(3) Therefore, there is no evidence that God exists.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (VIII)
(1) Miracles cannot exist because they would, by definition, violate the laws of physics.
(2) But the laws of physics cannot be violated.
(3) I did experiments that proved this.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (IX)
(1) Atheist: "It's interesting that miracles conveniently never happen around skeptics."
(2) Theist: "Well, I had a friend who used to be a skeptic until a miracle in his life happened."
(3) Atheist: "That doesn't count. He's not a skeptic anymore. I'm talking about real skeptics. The ones who stay skeptics even if they see a miracle."
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
A Look At "Hundreds of Atheist Arguments"
OK these are mostly satire, yet I have had some of these arguments made here. I rearranged a few of them into an order I think fits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Here's another important argument Atheists use:The argument from nature which is used to a) prove God does not exist and b) to justify homosexuality.
A.1)Animals do not not worship God
2)Humans are a subset of the Animal kingdom too
3)Therefore God does not exist
B.i)Homosexuality is practiced by some mammals in the animal kingdom
ii)Humans are also mammals
iii)Therefore homsexuality is acceptable
Now at what point do we draw the line and not allow animal behavior to dictate our own.Or is everything permissible?
Tough one for an Atheist to answer
Great find, Stan.
Very funny collection!
Fyodor Dostoevsky: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted."
(1) My Russian to French to English translation of The Brothers Karamazov does not have that exact phrase or wording.
(2) Besides, it's just a work of fiction, just like the Bible.
(3) I can be totally moral without God, and so I am permitted to do anything, and whatever I do is therefore moral, by my own version of rationality.
(4) If God existed, I would be constrained in my behavior, but I am unconstrained in my behavior because of my self-defined goodness.
(5) Therefore, God doesn't exist.
The self-described "infidels" even deny that quote IS a quote, on the basis that it is not in The Brothers Karamazov (1880). I can see why they would not want to accept that viewpoint as synonymous with their atheism (whichever variety it happens to be). It completely undercuts their claim that it is possible to be GROUNDED morally under atheism.
For a rebuttal by a native Russian speaker, see:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/andrei_volkov/dostoevsky.html
Great link, and a positive refutation of not just the literal issue, but the overall rejection of the main concept in the novel. The urge to deny seems never to be countered by fact for Atheists.
Either those Atheists were speaking without having read the novel, or they were outright lying. It happens very often that they reject without even reading. A discussion I am currently having via email includes a blanket rejection of all theist theories, including Aquinas with this comment:
Stan:
"And it is up to you to explain in disciplined detail why you reject the arguments, such as the Aquinas arguments, for example."
Atheist:
"All arguments for god boil down to a god of the gaps, or fallacious assertions of moral origins, design, etc. and all contain endless fallacies."
Refusal to defend their rejection, refusal to defend their own assertions, and refusal to contribute anything other than faux truth statements characterize these types of false propagandists. And they see nothing irrational about it, all the while claiming to have the edge, rationally. There is a certain insanity involved when irrationality appears rational even when the falseness is pointed out.
GREAT post!! GOD is great. Only HIM can reveal TRUTHS to mankind
This list is hilarious, but not in the way you might think. If this is a true representation of how you think atheist think then all I can do is laugh.
Oh, we know full well how Atheists think. Let's list some of the thought processes.
1. Denial of intellectual responsibility for saying why they reject theist arguments.
2. Constant and consistent use of rationalization to backfill their emotional conclusion which has no intellectual or evidentiary content.
3. Backfill the intellectual void they have created for themselves with visions of their own self-endowed elitism.
4. Live a life of arrogance despite also living a life dependent upon logical fallacy, which is now deeply embedded in the worldview.
5. Claim logic and evidence as the basis of their worldview, despite being based totally on emotional rejectionism and neediness.
6. Evangelize, claiming that critical thinking means being a critical person, who criticizes everything except Materialism and Scientism and Leftism.
7. Demand that government be beholden only to your views.
8. Be offended at the mere sight of religious artifacts and activities which are not underground. BUT:
9. Demand total tolerance for any possible amoral activity engaged in by the immoral.
10. Form and fund large organizations which attack small entities which display religious symbology. Do not attack Los Angeles, it might win, and that would destroy the ability for future attacks on the Other.
11. Claim that no one but an Atheist can understand Atheism.
12. Claim that other Atheists are wrong; only you understand Atheism.
13. Claim Atheism is not a religion.
14. Form churches.
15. Split into congregations due to dogma differences.
Some atheist do fit into the stereotypes that you have listed here, but many do not. Just because some in a group are wacko doesn't mean they all are. Case in point, Christianity probably should not be judged solely by the Westborrow Baptist folks. That being said, there are many reasonable atheist that can state their case without falling into any of your stereotypes that you have listed.
The list is actually a response to a list created by the Atheists at another site which they created to ridicule theists.
If you have a logical or empirical disproof for the existence of a creating agent for the universe, then go ahead and share it.
You would be the first.
I do have empirical proof of creative agents in the universe. People, birds, ants, bees, beavers, and even dolphins are creative agents. (And I am sure the list could be much longer if I took the time.) Now each of these creative agents have a few things in common concerning their creative abilities. They each are made of matter, they each are able to move other objects that are made of matter, they each go through some sort of thought process in their creative activities (each to varying degrees of thought.), and for the most part the act of creation in some way assist their continued existence as an individual or as a group (survivability).
So that is a general overview of things I have empirical evidence of that are creating agents in the universe. That is basically where I stop, because I have no empirical evidence for any creative agents beyond this solar system. For me to even formulate anything about any such agents would be pure speculation.
(Clarification: Stars and Black Holes and Dark Energy and Dark Matter may also be creative agents, but for the sake of this discussion I think we can agree that since Stars and Black Holes most likely don't think they are not the type of creative agents that you are interested in. Though they may have more in common with the universes' creative agent than you would like. I also think that we should not eliminate unthinking creative agents from the discussion, until we have justified reasons to do so. So I might ask the question, is the creative agent we are discussing a thinking or non-thinking agent? And why?)
The posit, under Determinism, is that the universe shows definite signs of having originated outside of material existence and causality, and thus its origination is necessarily non-material, has the capacity to create material entities, and has the will to do so. The Reductio Ad Absurdum would be "if it were otherwise, then..." And that argument can be filled in as necessary.
Under Non-Determinism (which is the new scientific pursuit), nothing can actually be known about anything, because cause and effect are merely macro effects of an unknown micro existence. (The Fourth and yet unkown physics, after Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum physics).
Feel free to argue for or against either posit.
So you are basicly stating that it is either randomly caused or non-randomly caused. And I think that some would say that non-randomly equals intentionally/willfully caused.
So how is one to determine which is true? As you mentioned, the science seems to be leaning in the direction of a random origin for the universe. This seems to go counter to our common sense understanding of things. But many of our common sense notions have been proven wrong ( flat earth, the heart being the origin of our thoughts, man will never fly.....)
For me I am going to side with the science, mainly because it is a self correcting system of discovery that has produced tangible and repeatable results. (It is not always quick on it's self-correctons I'll admit.) It had a rock start but the past 200 years it has had some impressive results.
The details of just how a random event causes a universe, I'm sure, will be absolutely fascinating. I keep abreast as mush as a layman can on the latest findings.
Interesting. Science is not claiming a random start for the universe, it is not actually claiming anything, because all it has is a pile of untestable hypotheses. Only ideologists make any firm claims, and those are based on ideology and not science.
Also, because science is headed directly away from testable hypotheses to untestable hypotheses, there is no longer any check on its validity. So there is no longer any "self correcting system". That vanished long ago, at the point where experiments were no longer causally productive. The impressive results you refer to were limited to Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, which are the macro physics which are the only physics we can understand based on cause and effect. (And even Relativity is iffy with respect to approaching light speed and black holes, etc).
So desregarding disciplined deduction in favor of untestability is no longer a beneficial approach to knowledge. So I'm surprised that you continue to adhere to that approach as the sole source of knowledge.
I only stated that science seems to be headed in the direction of a random origin of the universe. I know that they have not settled on any thing yet. As for being a bunch of untestable hypotheses I think you are reaching a bit too far. The whole basis of science is founded on testability, so your whole second paragraph is you projecting. That being said your last statement directed at me is also incorrect. Any one that holds onto one thing for their sole source of knowledge is a fool. And since you don't know me I don't think you can know anything about what I derive my knowledge from.
John:
Presuming you are a serious seeker after Truth, I suggest Dr. Robert J. Spitzer's excellent book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389826489&sr=1-1&keywords=Robert+J.+Spitzer+New+Proofs+for+the+Existence+of+God
Enjoy!
John said:I do have empirical proof of creative agents in the universe. People, birds, ants, bees, beavers, and even dolphins are creative agents."
And these creative agents you mentioned created the Universe/responsible for the Big bang?Or are they the result of evolution and evolution created the Universe?
What exactly is your point for mentioning dolphins birds,etc.?
My point is that I have evidence of creative agents as I says within the confines of our solar system, but I am not able to provide any proof of any creative agents outside of our solar system. At some point we may find evidence of a creative agent living in another solar system or somewhere else. But at this moment we have no evidence of any creative agents outside of our solar system. If you have any evidence please present it and collect your Nobel Prize.
There is deductive argumentation in the Challenge to Atheists which you can find in the right hand column and defeat with your own logical analysis, as you are able.
I don't think people win Nobel Prizes by presenting deductive argumentation only. Usually it has to be demonstrated experimentally .
If that's your basis for rejecting the basis for current scientific knowlege, then you are wrong. Virtually all modern science is deductively based, including the conclusions of particle physics as well as quantum mechanics and especially evolution. Only medicine and non-evolutionary biology are experimentally based these days
If you wish to refute the logic, which is grounded in current physics and cosmology, then either do it, or admit that you can't. Excuses are not even deductively based, much less empirically.
I'm not rejecting current scientific knowledge - you are reading too much into what I am saying. I agree that science starts with deductive reasoning. But the strength of science is the repeatable experiments. The experiments that are being done with particle physics and quantum mechanics are always so mind blowing cool. And I recently read about an awesome experiment that has been on going for more than 20 years in the field of evolution that has had some fantastic results. (It is an ongoing experiment that is documenting evolutionary change in colonies of bacteria at the DNA level.)
Particle physics has not generated a single objective proof of any of their subatomic particles. What they do is to find an energy spike after a collision in an accellerator, and they declare that to be a particle. And if they don't get a spike where they want it, they declare the
"particles" to be too bound up to release, so that they can never be seen. For declared particles, seeing an energy spike one time out of ten thousand or more tests serves as "evidence". You can't go by press releases. Would you care to read the full story of sub-atomic particle physics? I can recommend a source. Actually several.
As for evolution and bacteria with DNA change, every human has DNA change automatically from the sperm/egg fertilization, where two DNA's wrap together to form a new and unique individual. Mere DNA change which does not change the population genome is not evolution, but it might be selection in the sense that resistant bacteria are not killed when a toxin is introduced. The remaining bacteria were always present, but with the population bell curve distorted by the toxin only this part of the original genome remains. This is not evolution.
What evolution posits is that something occurs which takes the offspring outside of the general species genome (a mutation) which is beneficial in the sense that a new feature set allows better conformity to the changing environment. Seeing DNA "change" in bacteria is not the same as a new feature developing in the gene pool due to mutation, a mutation which is a beneficial, novel feature not contained in any sense in the prior gene pool.
Only when bacteria develop new features, like feet or a stomach or something else novel, has evolution actually occured. That is the only way to get from bacteria to fish to mammals to humans: mutations producing novel features which are retained and used to fit better into a changing environment. This has not been produced; if it had, there would be a national holiday to celebrate it.
Science has been radicalized by the need to publish or perish, and the need to generate continuous funding, despite never producing any actual results. It is a fact that most scientific papers which are published are false (need references?). The corruption of science has occured side by side with the corruption of the universities, and the corruption of corporations trying to sell products under false pretenses. That's why there are all the lawyers on late night TV calling for class action suits.
Engaging skepicism is always encouraged, until the truth is obvious. However, Scientism is too religious in nature to engender actual skepticism of its own produce. Scientism is not science.
Emprical science worked only on Newtonian physics, where actual experiments with replicable results could be performed. Science is no longer empirical and experimentally replicable, including particle physics. I've mentioned this before, but you apparently don't want to internalize it. That's fine; believe what you want, just understand that it is a belief and not a truth. A modicum of skepticism and a little study would be beneficial to complete understanding of the inside part of the science establishment.
I would hope that by reading these sites you might change your bias towards science.
http://atlas.ch/news/2013/higgs-into-fermions.html
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/05/basics-higgs-boson
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.Utin9X-9KK0
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933
Understanding the actual process is more important than blind faith that it works.
Also your presumption that I am ignorant of the "news" that science projects, is misguided. If you want both sides, then read these books, in order:
The Trouble With Physics, by Lee Smolin, physicist;
The Higgs Fake, by Alexander Unziker, physicist;
And after those are read, then read:
Higgs Discovery; Lisa Randall, physicist;
Higgs; Jim Baggot.
See where the "whole story" actually lies.
The only one worth reading is Lee Smolin's book. Unziker is not truly a physicist, and comes off sounding like a paranoid conspiracy nut. Randall's writing style can be confusing and Baggot is ok for a popularizer of science but others do the job better.
Then you seem to be aware of the limitations and failures of modern science (although you deny the evidence of Unziker based not on evidential criticism, but on critiquing him personally). And still you think that science is the way to truth and the place to put your trust. Well that's up to you, of course, but it seems to me to be a naive attachment to a false image that you cling to.
Science does not address truth, it produces temporary contingent factoids about mass/energy. If that is truth to you, then go and be happy with it. It is devoid of wisdom, or even the potential for wisdom though. And it knows actually very little. But still, it is up to you.
Unziker may have something of value to say, he just doesn't present it in a calm manor. ( He may be a swell guy but his writing style is a bit much.) as for science being the way to truth - science in my opinion is the most reasonable method of learning about the universe for several reasons. 1) It creates repeatable results. 2) it has the ability to create predications. 3) it regularly test those predictions. 4) it has review processes built in. 5) it allows for the distruction of it's own dogma. 6) it can provide practical ways of using the results of it's findings. 7) it's results can be discribed in mathematical form. (Which allows anyone to study it even if they don't share the same native language.) 8) it has a track record that shows that it works.
I think that the one thing most folks don't ever think about is that every time that they use a cell phone or an MRI machine or a microwave or a GPS or any of a thousand different devices they are performing an experiment to test if the folks in the lab coats got the science right or not. Billions of experiments are performed each and everyday that confirm that the science is right, and that science is still headed in the right direction. If for instance MRI machines all over the world started to create strange outputs scientist would be at the forefront to discover the cause of the abnormality. And in the process science would discover something new about the universe.
Science does address truth by attempting to achieve a way to describe reality in the best approximation of the truth that is available at the time based of on the data at hand and the precision of the test exquipment they have available. If they gather more data that is more precise then their model will better represent reality (the truth).
As for wisdom - it is a label that is applied to a wide variety of things, like the word "blue". Blue is a word that describes a set. The set contains a range of frequencies of light, human emotions, a range of music and a bunch of things. But blue is not an actual object. Wisdom falls into the same category , it is a label of a wide range of things. To say science is devoid of wisdom is like saying New Orleans is devoid of the blues.
I think it maybe you that cling to a false image of science.
John,
First, your image of science is admittedly formed by neglecting the fundamental criticisms of critics you don't like. You seem to cherry pick data to fit your worldview.
Second, your original claim that "science" is objectively replicable is refuted easily for particle physics, string theory, cosmological science, and quantum mechanics, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. Why not?
Third, kindly support that final analogy by providing the wisdom you think science has produced which is embedded in its empirical studies. i.e., what are the wisdom portions of scientific papers?
Finally, you have not responded to the internal corruption which is brought about by the Big Science money system which I pointed out, or the publish-or-perish generation of significantly more bogus science publications than valid publications. Please respond to that.
Finally, you confuse engineering with today's science. There is a world of difference. Would you like an explanation?
I absolutely agree that string theory should actually be called string hypothesis. It is defiantly a cool branch of mathematics but until it produces experimental results it is just guess work.
As for the corruption, science is a human endeavor so you are bound to have corruption along the way. That doesn't mean that science isn't being done. And the corruption doesn't actually reflect on wether or not the science is valid or not.
As for my world view - everyone cherry picks, even you. If you did not, you would have a world view that everything is equally valid. If I did not cherry pick I would put voodo on the same footing with quantum physics ( see even I have a sense of humor).
As for wisdom - I leave that to the navel gazers. I am not a wise man for sure but I am wizened enough to realize it, which puts me way ahead of the pack.
Engineering happens after the science. But engineering confirms the science. Every time an MRI is used an experiment is being performed on the water molecules in the patients body. If the science is right the molecule will send out a photon with a specific frequency that will be read by the machine and be used to create an image of the interior of the patient. If the science is wrong then the image won't corilate to the interior of the patient and the doctor may kill the patient due to this bad information.
Today's science is tomorrow's engineering.
Post a Comment