Logic is subjective to the person, so is everything.
Check.
So if we define Science as OBJECTIVE under Logic, the assertion is subjective.
Therefore, A scientific theory is subjective, however since it is verifiable by definition it is to the nth degree objective except for the possibility existing that it may be subjective.
Really what a scientific theory is one that works.
If it works, use it. If it is found faulty, fix it or lose it.
Thats why science is so useful. And remember not to confuse quacks with real research scientists.
Logic is subjective to the person, so is everything.
Check.
So if we define Science as OBJECTIVE under Logic, the assertion is subjective.
Therefore, A scientific theory is subjective, however since it is verifiable by definition it is to the nth degree objective except for the possibility existing that it may be subjective.
Really what a scientific theory is one that works.
If it works, use it. If it is found faulty, fix it or lose it.
Thats why science is so useful. And remember not to confuse quacks with real research scientists.
Logic is only fallable under bad assumptions. Qvak!
I completely understand your snide response. Since evolutionists want full participation with all being, they have a very personal stake in finding a "scientific" explanation for themselves. They get a bit cagey when they are told that don't have a handle on that explanation---which violates who they believe themselves to be.
Well, my point was to say that in the spirit of intellectual honesty, it won't be a true discussion until we drag creationism into it.
And to say you've got your theories backwards. There is no "force" that evolutionists believe in. That's creationism.
So why are creationists so opposed to evolutionists? Vanity? Does the idea that we could have evolved from other lifeforms challenge the creationst perception of man's place in the cosmos? That we are somehow less special? Less divine? Come on, let's be honest now.
......Does the idea that we could have evolved from other lifeforms challenge the creationst perception of man's place in the cosmos? That we are somehow less special? Less divine? Come on, let's be honest now.
*comes back from fishing---fishless, and in a foul fukking mood*
I AM SHOCKED---SHOCKED---TO FIND ARGUING AND CHEAP SHOTS DIRECTED AT ME IN THIS THREAD!!!
I have tried both Logic and Reason and eventually decided that evolution just doesn't make sense in a world that has so obviously been carefully created, I eventually settled for Cubase as its design was far more scientific.
Seriously though, not all theories have to fall straight into the catagories of either science or religion.
And explanations of the origins of the universe and all those "big questions" that are a mixture of the two seem to make far more sense to me than theories that take a particular stance and totally dismiss other possibilities.
I just wish people would be more open minded about things like this, they seem mainly to fall into one of two catagories, either people like my dad who "know" that there is no god, no afterlife, no soul, nothing beyond what is considered "fact"
Or people like my grandparents who "know" exactly what God is where the universe came from and where everything will end.
It's just sad that if you live your life by your own ideas of the origin of life and the universe and call it science, you'll be considered a genius, but if you call it religion, you'll be considered insane, however if you live your life by exactly what your parents have told you without considering it for yourself and call it religion, it's totally acceptable.
We cannot deny evolution, it's happening around us right now, the animals best suited to their habitat survive and pass on their characterisitics to their offspring, where life came from originally, who knows? What life actually is, who knows? Science may be able to explain how the brain works, but it can't explain how the mind works, or what emotions are.
The truth is no one one earth knows for sure the origins of life or the universe, becuase... whether we have evolved to this point or whether we were created by a greater power, people who were intelligent enough to understand their own mind and the universe just wouldn't be able to live with themselves.
No one will ever know everything, but I think we can reach a suitable philosophy with a healthy mixture of fact and faith. if we are willing to accept that we may be wrong, the terrible thing is, that we can't, and we tend to end up killing each other because of tiny petty differences in our faiths (however we got here we are not going to gain further knowledge by killing each other)
I hope my philosophical ramblings make sense. I could go on but I don't think anyone could be bothered to read it to the end. So there's my addition to this thread... (which, by the way is exactly what I was talking about, people have to discuss these things as long as they are willing to see things in other ways, not just try to make people see things their way)
When we test the universe, we KNOW that if you want an ordered system, you break out the lab equipment, apply intelligence, and energy to get what you want--if you have the savvy to work the material.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
ducks in for a peak:
(the phoenix rises)
run away run away.
If this is a parody of ena, it's funny.
If you are serious, that's pathetic. Don't be like ena.
Originally posted by BR
If this is a parody of ena, it's funny.
If you are serious, that's pathetic. Don't be like ena.
What do you think it is?
Check.
So if we define Science as OBJECTIVE under Logic, the assertion is subjective.
Therefore, A scientific theory is subjective, however since it is verifiable by definition it is to the nth degree objective except for the possibility existing that it may be subjective.
Really what a scientific theory is one that works.
If it works, use it. If it is found faulty, fix it or lose it.
Thats why science is so useful. And remember not to confuse quacks with real research scientists.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
Logic is subjective to the person, so is everything.
Check.
So if we define Science as OBJECTIVE under Logic, the assertion is subjective.
Therefore, A scientific theory is subjective, however since it is verifiable by definition it is to the nth degree objective except for the possibility existing that it may be subjective.
Really what a scientific theory is one that works.
If it works, use it. If it is found faulty, fix it or lose it.
Thats why science is so useful. And remember not to confuse quacks with real research scientists.
Logic is only fallable under bad assumptions. Qvak!
Since logic is subjective it may be faulted under proper assumptions as well.
Please remember that "Human logic" is unprotected from fallacy.
Originally posted by ena
I completely understand your snide response. Since evolutionists want full participation with all being, they have a very personal stake in finding a "scientific" explanation for themselves. They get a bit cagey when they are told that don't have a handle on that explanation---which violates who they believe themselves to be.
Well, my point was to say that in the spirit of intellectual honesty, it won't be a true discussion until we drag creationism into it.
And to say you've got your theories backwards. There is no "force" that evolutionists believe in. That's creationism.
So why are creationists so opposed to evolutionists? Vanity? Does the idea that we could have evolved from other lifeforms challenge the creationst perception of man's place in the cosmos? That we are somehow less special? Less divine? Come on, let's be honest now.
Originally posted by jesperas
......Does the idea that we could have evolved from other lifeforms challenge the creationst perception of man's place in the cosmos? That we are somehow less special? Less divine? Come on, let's be honest now.
*comes back from fishing---fishless, and in a foul fukking mood*
I AM SHOCKED---SHOCKED---TO FIND ARGUING AND CHEAP SHOTS DIRECTED AT ME IN THIS THREAD!!!
SHOCKED!!!
*opens ESB and leaves thread until morning*
Seriously though, not all theories have to fall straight into the catagories of either science or religion.
And explanations of the origins of the universe and all those "big questions" that are a mixture of the two seem to make far more sense to me than theories that take a particular stance and totally dismiss other possibilities.
I just wish people would be more open minded about things like this, they seem mainly to fall into one of two catagories, either people like my dad who "know" that there is no god, no afterlife, no soul, nothing beyond what is considered "fact"
Or people like my grandparents who "know" exactly what God is where the universe came from and where everything will end.
It's just sad that if you live your life by your own ideas of the origin of life and the universe and call it science, you'll be considered a genius, but if you call it religion, you'll be considered insane, however if you live your life by exactly what your parents have told you without considering it for yourself and call it religion, it's totally acceptable.
We cannot deny evolution, it's happening around us right now, the animals best suited to their habitat survive and pass on their characterisitics to their offspring, where life came from originally, who knows? What life actually is, who knows? Science may be able to explain how the brain works, but it can't explain how the mind works, or what emotions are.
The truth is no one one earth knows for sure the origins of life or the universe, becuase... whether we have evolved to this point or whether we were created by a greater power, people who were intelligent enough to understand their own mind and the universe just wouldn't be able to live with themselves.
No one will ever know everything, but I think we can reach a suitable philosophy with a healthy mixture of fact and faith. if we are willing to accept that we may be wrong, the terrible thing is, that we can't, and we tend to end up killing each other because of tiny petty differences in our faiths (however we got here we are not going to gain further knowledge by killing each other)
I hope my philosophical ramblings make sense. I could go on but I don't think anyone could be bothered to read it to the end. So there's my addition to this thread... (which, by the way is exactly what I was talking about, people have to discuss these things as long as they are willing to see things in other ways, not just try to make people see things their way)
Andrew
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
I disagree.
Since logic is subjective it may be faulted under proper assumptions as well.
Please remember that "Human logic" is unprotected from fallacy.
Logic in and of itself is not subjective.
Human (mis)use of logic is subjective.
The problem in the (hu)man and not the logic.
[Reason is Human Logic and is fallable.]
Otherwise nothing happens.