131 replies to this topic

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 08 September 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Belial

I wouldn't be too fussy about a distinction between natural philosopher and scientist. Newton believed he was doing natural philosophy. Galileo, Descartes and Leibniz too. This was because natural philosophy meant wondering how nature (as opposed to theology or morality) worked.

Adding to what Lanatin said:
The error, I believe, in the ancient thinkers was fivefold:

1. Trust of authority
2. Trust in analogy (or assuming things which are logically possible to be erroneous)
3. Trust in the simplest inference possible
4. Lack of data
5. Lack of decent means of gathering data

Galileo's Aristotelian opponent had 4 out of 5 deficiencies:

1. He trusted Aristotle, because he was the philosopher
2. Aristotle in turn drew an analogy between the behaviour of things in water and in air
3. Rather than invoke gravitational acceleration, it seemed simpler to them to believe in objects having intrinsic properties (how, in hindsight I can't imagine)
4. They didn't know much about the objects, since they had not experimented with them in different settings

Galileo showed 1 to be baseless arguing, 2 to be logically incoherent, 3 to be exasperated fiction, 4 to be a problem which he then remedied with 5.

So, far from logic being the bad guy in the hands of bad science, it is actually the good guy in the service of good science, refuting the incoherent hypotheses and helping to prove the correct ones.

Galileo reasoned that two weights held together would fall at the same rate as one weight.
Then he did experiments to test the idea — and, not surprisingly to us, it was true.

This was the start of modern empirical science, and our collective understanding of the universe hasn’t been the same since.

“Empirical” refers to ideas that are capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. Empirical evidence is not simply one type of evidence, but rather it is the only evidence that we can rely on, because it is reproducible.

Empirical evidence is the basis for physical science.

Logic alone is not sufficient.

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

Quote

Galileo reasoned that two weights held together would fall at the same rate as one weight.
Then he did experiments to test the idea — and, not surprisingly to us, it was true.

Ok.

Quote

This was the start of modern empirical science, and our collective understanding of the universe hasn’t been the same since.

“Empirical” refers to ideas that are capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. Empirical evidence is not simply one type of evidence, but rather it is the only evidence that we can rely on, because it is reproducible.

Empiricism was shown time and time again to only be a form of induction,and induction as we know falls pray to interpretation of what we see.

I  can induce X from what I see,but someone else can induce B from what I see as well.

To say that empiricism is the only form of valid epistemology is to really play a song already played.

You bring these old cliches that I think most intelligent atheists do not bring up.


For example can you prove to me empirically that your great great great great great grandfather existed?

How? You don't have the DNA,you don't have pictures of him,you don't have tools,obviously the only way you can prove it is rationally because you are here,otherwise you wouldn't exist.

Quote

Empirical evidence is the basis for physical science.

Logic alone is not sufficient.

Look an atheist attacking logic,how surprising .


If science goes against logic,then your science is wrong. Bottom line.

Science cannot make 1 plus 1 equal 4 can it?

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, 08 September 2012 - 11:02 AM.

[Quisant]

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, on 08 September 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

You bring these old cliches that I think most intelligent atheists do not bring up.


For example can you prove to me empirically that your great great great great great grandfather existed?

How? You don't have the DNA,you don't have pictures of him,you don't have tools,obviously the only way you can prove it is rationally because you are here,otherwise you wouldn't exist.

When confronted with medieval mindsets one is compelled to use old cliches like extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and even so it does not seem to penetrate very thick mindsets.

Another good one is that 'improbable claims require supporting evidence more than probable' ones'.

I am not claiming that my ancestors existed nor do I need to prove it to myself or anybody else.

You are claiming that matter had a beginning, that a single intelligent divine entity was the cause for this universe.

It is a fantastic claim accompanied by feeble logic and no evidence whatsoever.

I guess you can fool some of the people some of the time....(another cliché' for your delight)

Anyway, I am done with this thread, feel free to have the last word.
*

[Lanatin]

Quisant, on 09 September 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

When confronted with medieval mindsets one is compelled to use old cliches like extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and even so it does not seem to penetrate very thick mindsets.

Another good one is that 'improbable claims require supporting evidence more than probable' ones'.

I am not claiming that my ancestors existed nor do I need to prove it to myself or anybody else.

You are claiming that matter had a beginning, that a single intelligent divine entity was the cause for this universe.

It is a fantastic claim accompanied by feeble logic and no evidence whatsoever.

I guess you can fool some of the people some of the time....(another cliché' for your delight)

Anyway, I am done with this thread, feel free to have the last word.
*

Quote

I briefly looked at some of the prominent arguments from both sides and quickly came to the realization that both sides are heavily biased, arrogant and irrational

[Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz]

Quisant, on 09 September 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

When confronted with medieval mindsets one is compelled to use old cliches like extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and even so it does not seem to penetrate very thick mindsets.

Another good one is that 'improbable claims require supporting evidence more than probable' ones'.

I am not claiming that my ancestors existed nor do I need to prove it to myself or anybody else.

You are claiming that matter had a beginning, that a single intelligent divine entity was the cause for this universe.

It is a fantastic claim accompanied by feeble logic and no evidence whatsoever.

I guess you can fool some of the people some of the time....(another cliché' for your delight)

Anyway, I am done with this thread, feel free to have the last word.
*

What is a fantastic claim?

A fantastic claim is a claim made devoid of reason or evidence,a claim which is unlikely.

If a claim is substantiated with proofs then it becomes likely.

[Belial]

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, on 06 September 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

I will later make a new thread fully explaining the argument in detail,if you have more questions PM me.

Maybe u have forgotten, or are extensively busy Ali.

Ill give you a week or so before i call closure on this one.

Edited by Belial, 20 September 2012 - 06:51 AM.