Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grakelin]

I'm unable to really follow what's going on anymore (how did we even get to this point of debate, anyways), but I just want to say:

Siquo: Fuck you. Science is the one and only truth, and is completely infallible, and I am as certain of that as I am certain that the Earth is surrounded by 55 crystal spheres which hold the stars.

I'm not sure who you're trying to impersonate here, but I personally surely don't feel addressed. Also, you might want to defuse that a little bit, someone with mod power glancing over this might miss your attempt at sarcasm.

I was, in a sense, backing up Siquo's statement that science is not settled in a concrete foundation, and that what we know about it can change at any time, by referencing the popular Aristotelian theory of everything in the universe being held together by a series of crystal spheres that revolve around the Earth, which was disproved by Galileo and is a perfect example of the fallacies of being too arrogant in what we think we've nailed down as fact. I was hoping I would get a response from Siquo before I got responses from multiple people who missed the reference and/or warned that a mod might intervene for my rampant flaming, but such is the internet.

This thread is taking an interesting turn. This is not to say a productive one. It seems as though most of us aren't actually reading any of the pages that come before where we decide to post, judging by how new definitions of religion keep popping up whenever a new person joins into the discussion (which would be okay, except that the definitions we were originally debating over aren't being addressed). Now we're at the point where people are putting forward the idea of science and religion being impossible to blend. If we look at the religious beliefs of various scientists through history, we will find this to be false quite quickly. In fact, many things that scientists have discovered have strengthened their faith in whatever religion they follow.

[Fooj]

Now we're at the point where people are putting forward the idea of science and religion being impossible to blend.

Not impossible. In fact, I'm of the position that they should be blended more than they are, aka "neo-bullshitism"  . It's just that (some) people never think of them in terms other than opposite or as though they cancel each other out somehow, which again, I blame on the aggressiveness of the church setting the stances.

[Grakelin]

The Catholic Church put their backing behind a lot of scientific advancement during the Renaissance. They were just less impressed with scientific advancements that radically altered their world-view. They were quite happy with Galileo making telescopes and trying to figure out why things did and didn't float, after all.

[Smitehappy]

Now we're at the point where people are putting forward the idea of science and religion being impossible to blend.

Not impossible. In fact, I'm of the position that they should be blended more than they are, aka "neo-bullshitism"  . It's just that (some) people never think of them in terms other than opposite or as though they cancel each other out somehow, which again, I blame on the aggressiveness of the church setting the stances.

Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
Faith: belief that is not based on proof

You CANNOT blend science and religion because fact ELIMINATES faith. Faith is the lack of fact. Fact is the lack of faith. YOU CANNOT MIX THEM. Fact based around faith is not faith and faith based around fact is no longer faith.

The Catholic Church put their backing behind a lot of scientific advancement during the Renaissance. They were just less impressed with scientific advancements that radically altered their world-view. They were quite happy with Galileo making telescopes and trying to figure out why things did and didn't float, after all.

Is that before or after he was force to recant his "Earth revolves around the sun" stance by the Catholic church?

[MrWiggles]

Personal experience and observation is shitty and discerning actual events. Anecdotal is the weakest form of evidence.

[Smitehappy]

Personal experience and observation is shitty and discerning actual events. Anecdotal is the weakest form of evidence.

So what do you prefer Wiggles, besides personal experience and observation of course, to gather and obtain information? Do you propose that before anyone is allowed to speak on a subject they must personally verify every piece of relevant information through personal testing? Because I sure as hell don't want to spend years personally proving the square root of negative one is i.

[G-Flex]

Anecdotal evidence is considered bad due to lack of controls and proper sampling, plus the effect of human cognitive/memory biases and that sort of thing.

There's a huge difference between "anecdotal evidence" and "observation".

[Fooj]

You CANNOT blend science and religion because fact ELIMINATES faith. Faith is the lack of fact. Fact is the lack of faith. YOU CANNOT MIX THEM. Fact based around faith is not faith and faith based around fact is no longer faith.

If religion was just and only faith. You've all heard the dictionary definition of what makes a "religion" 100x before, no doubt. It's a set of positions on certain topics (that do usually involve faith). A religion can exist completely based within science and isn't atheism (and no, it wouldn't have "faith" either).

They were just less impressed with scientific advancements that radically altered their world-view.

If by "less impressed" you mean "enraged".

Anecdotal is the weakest form of evidence.

I'd say association is, and that's the most widely used.

[Smitehappy]

Anecdotal evidence is considered bad due to lack of controls and proper sampling, plus the effect of human cognitive/memory biases and that sort of thing.

There's a huge difference between "anecdotal evidence" and "observation".

So how many proxies am I allowed before scientific observations become anecdotal evidence?

[MrWiggles]

Anecdotal evidence is considered bad due to lack of controls and proper sampling, plus the effect of human cognitive/memory biases and that sort of thing.

There's a huge difference between "anecdotal evidence" and "observation".

So how many proxies am I allowed before scientific observations become anecdotal evidence?

That depends if its an objective or value item for debate.

If its objective, I turn to empirical methods and subject my observation with repeated independent conformation. I do not rely on my personal experience to explain how the world works in objective fashions, as that foolish.

If its value, then anecdotal is totally cool.

[G-Flex]

Anecdotal evidence is considered bad due to lack of controls and proper sampling, plus the effect of human cognitive/memory biases and that sort of thing.

There's a huge difference between "anecdotal evidence" and "observation".

So how many proxies am I allowed before scientific observations become anecdotal evidence?

I'm not sure what you're even asking here. I think I made it pretty clear what the distinction is between anecdotal evidence and scientifically-valid observation.

Anecdotal evidence is bad because of all kinds of things: Low sample sets, samples chosen poorly, memory/cognitive bias, absolutely no controls, etc. There's a reason why scientific studies try to account for as much information as possible, and why pharmaceutical studies are double-blind. There are all kinds of methodological issues that you can fall into if you're not doing empirical observation/studies very well, and anecdotal evidence falls into pretty much all of them, potentially. It just doesn't make for very valid data.

[MrWiggles]

Anecdotal evidence is considered bad due to lack of controls and proper sampling, plus the effect of human cognitive/memory biases and that sort of thing.

There's a huge difference between "anecdotal evidence" and "observation".

So how many proxies am I allowed before scientific observations become anecdotal evidence?

I'm not sure what you're even asking here. I think I made it pretty clear what the distinction is between anecdotal evidence and scientifically-valid observation.

Anecdotal evidence is bad because of all kinds of things: Low sample sets, samples chosen poorly, memory/cognitive bias, absolutely no controls, etc. There's a reason why scientific studies try to account for as much information as possible, and why pharmaceutical studies are double-blind. There are all kinds of methodological issues that you can fall into if you're not doing empirical observation/studies very well, and anecdotal evidence falls into pretty much all of them, potentially. It just doesn't make for very valid data.

At most anecdotal evidence can give you a place to look. 

[Smitehappy]

Anecdotal evidence is bad because of all kinds of things: Low sample sets, samples chosen poorly, memory/cognitive bias, absolutely no controls, etc. There's a reason why scientific studies try to account for as much information as possible, and why pharmaceutical studies are double-blind. There are all kinds of methodological issues that you can fall into if you're not doing empirical observation/studies very well, and anecdotal evidence falls into pretty much all of them, potentially. It just doesn't make for very valid data.

Well there's the problem, you're not using the same definition for anecdotal evidence as I am. I was assuming the "Information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically." and assumed you were arguing that fact cannot be proven unless personally tested.

[G-Flex]

What does "documented scientifically" mean, then? In a scientific journal? Being published doesn't mean you're practicing science, and being not-published doesn't mean you aren't. However, peer review is an important part of the process, and "some guy I know saw this thing" is plagued with problems largely because it's impossible to test, verify, or examine the methodology behind.

[Smitehappy]

What does "documented scientifically" mean, then? In a scientific journal? Being published doesn't mean you're practicing science, and being not-published doesn't mean you aren't. However, peer review is an important part of the process, and "some guy I know saw this thing" is plagued with problems largely because it's impossible to test, verify, or examine the methodology behind.

*Sigh* It seems the majority of this thread's arguments are caused by the limitations of spoken language. What I meant in my head and when I typed it as "documented scientifically" was "proven using the scientific method with results and data recorded through some means to ensure accuracy." Not published in a journal.