Comments on: Non-Scientific vs Scientific Thinking

By: Mike Arthur

Mike Arthur — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:36:29 +0000

I stumbled upon this looking for a quote and just thought I’d leave my two cents.

It’s interesting that so many of you claim that any religious person who did the above would cease to believe? I’ve been doing that since I’ve been a Christian and I still believe strongly. I’m maybe a different Christian to what you might expect because I believe a lot of the things that get us painted with a bad brush (e.g. I believe in evolution and the Big Bang) but I still have an active and exciting faith.

By: Jabster

Jabster — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:37:18 +0000

That’s the key point though — whatever works or can be shown to work dominates. Science still has a underlying mechanism that allows the ‘truth’ to matter but it’s just not as clean cut as it may often be presented. Scientists are still human after all so can be very guarded of the own positions and even actively falsify evidence. The thing, is it’s still the best method we have developed of working out what’s true and what isn’t. It reminds me of a Churchill quote:

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

By: Sunny Day

Sunny Day — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:54:18 +0000

John C’s garage sale: 1 brain lightly used.

By: Elemenope

Elemenope — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:05:51 +0000

So you’re saying God gives us enough brains to reject Him?

No, I’m saying that since we have brains of a given sophistication, if there is a God, that God must have been cognizant of that fact when He created us, hence those brains are purposeful, hence “not for the lulz”. If God exists, and God created our brains, and God is not a twisted ass, he intended us to use our brains.

See? logic.

You must think the real “Christian” experience is a head trip, an illogical belief system of sorts?

Not at all. I think that Christianity can be logical (Tillich, Chesterton, Lewis, et al.), or not (Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, et al.). I have no problem calling one expression superior to the other. One embraces the human capacity for reason and the other runs away screaming. If human intellect were truly a gift from God, then one would be honoring the gift and the other scorning it. Of course, the risk of thinking about something is that one might come to an uncomfortable conclusion, even a radical one.

By: John C

John C — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:46:44 +0000

So you’re saying God gives us enough brains to reject Him? You must think the real “Christian” experience is a head trip, an illogical belief system of sorts?

By: Elemenope

Elemenope — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:32:46 +0000

Try and disprove Truth…Himself? Why would I want to do a silly thing like that?

Because if you tried hard and failed, then that would be more subjective evidence that it was in fact truth. If you never tried, then you have no good reason to think that what you believe could survive scrutiny, pressure, or criticism, and thus is unlikely to be true.

If there is a God, one imagines He didn’t give people brains capable of logical thought just for the lulz.

By: Janet Greene

Janet Greene — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:21:31 +0000

Sorry about that last post, just trying to fit in with the earnestness and silliness of the christians on this site – just trying to make you all feel welcome…

By: Janet Greene

Janet Greene — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:20:13 +0000

I think I saw Jesus trying to climb out of my cat’s bowl. Wonder what he was doing there. Do you guys think he was trying to steal snowball’s food? Or maybe he fell in by accident (he’s not that young anymore). Also, does this prove the resurrection? Just an observation and some points to ponder….

By: John C

John C — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:08:22 +0000

Try and disprove Truth…Himself? Why would I want to do a silly thing like that? Then I would really be delusional, lol.

Yes,God IS and He is Love!

By: wazza

wazza — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:54:14 +0000

have you ever tried disproving that truth, John C?

By: John C

John C — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:34:20 +0000

Of course I knew you were being sarcastic, just needed a little tweaking to hear a…Truth!

By: Elemenope

Elemenope — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:03:02 +0000

But space travel, math, and physics are also sciences where the margin of error is minimal, and scientists often compete, thus doing all possible to prove another’s theories wrong.

Space travel is engineering more than science, which is a domain where what works always matters more than what’s true.

Math is arguably not a science at all (for many reasons).

I’ll give you physics, unless you’re talking about the part of physics that dips haphazardly and with abandon into metaphysics (e.g. when it discusses the deep structure of the really small stuff).

By: Lorena

Lorena — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:07:08 +0000

Did you see him? In which case, you need medication.

By: Lorena

Lorena — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:06:07 +0000

That mostly happens with pharmaceuticals, because people are dying and often even demanding the experimental drug.

But space travel, math, and physics are also sciences where the margin of error is minimal, and scientists often compete, thus doing all possible to prove another’s theories wrong. (Scientists compete for journal publication, awards, and grants.)

By: Elemenope

Elemenope — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:53:52 +0000

It’s the major point that the works of Lakatos that he tried to resolve this problem within the execution of science under Popperian philosophy.

He certainly tried. I tend to think that he failed as far as most of the activities we would deign to call science though. Unfortunately, I would argue that Feyerabend was closer to being right (science is a pragmatic instrumental occupation where whatever works dominates, with whatever works being at best defined in a weak intersubjective fashion) and Lakatos’ notion was/is true only of narrow bands of the wider field. Hence the continuing demarcation problem that Popper himself pointed out.