Question From High School Student

[Raithere]

Do you realize that this is a speciously worded argument from ignorance?

There is no solution to epistemology. Acknowledging this does not constitute an argument from ignorance, the ramifications from a strictly logical perspective are severe in the extreme. There is no basis for knowledge, for thought, for action, for anything... yet something exists. One is required to make a leap of assumption in order to have a foundation for anything. This, however, does not make all assumptions equal and it is this fact I was attempting to point out to you. Given that there is no logically solid epistemological foundation, we must rely upon other methods to build a world view.

Empiricism is based upon the assumption that the congruence of observational data provides a reliable foundation upon which to think, act, and know. This methodology, while still based upon an assumption continually proves itself reliable. If you disagree, I challenge you to action based upon an alternative assumption and record the results for us.

"Objectively" speaking then...

How foolish. You toss out any basis for knowledge and then propose an 'objective' assertion? What can 'objectively' possibly mean in context?

As long as people realize this and realize that in this manner, science and ID are not very much different

Yes, they are. Recall that ID positions itself as science. This places it on the same playing field as Evolution. It fails to uphold the rules of the game and thus fails. All else being equal, ID is simply a lie; it pretends to be something it's not. Even given epistemological uncertainty it fails a logical test.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

There is no solution to epistemology. Acknowledging this does not constitute an argument from ignorance, the ramifications from a strictly logical perspective are severe in the extreme. There is no basis for knowledge, for thought, for action, for anything... yet something exists. One is required to make a leap of assumption in order to have a foundation for anything. This, however, does not make all assumptions equal and it is this fact I was attempting to point out to you. Given that there is no logically solid epistemological foundation, we must rely upon other methods to build a world view.

Empiricism is based upon the assumption that the congruence of observational data provides a reliable foundation upon which to think, act, and know. This methodology, while still based upon an assumption continually proves itself reliable. If you disagree, I challenge you to action based upon an alternative assumption and record the results for us.

All you have done is simply state AGAIN the argument from ignorance.

We don't know a better way, so that justifies what we settle for. Whether or not you claim it is pragmatic does not make it any less of an argument from ignorance. Moreover, the assumption that it continually proves itself reliable is based on shallow circular reasoning - there is simply no standard by which such a baseless qualification can be justified and thus the assumption is purely imbecilic - at best. Not that I want to turn this into a personal fight, but you do realize that you have repeatedly failed to qualify yourself. All I am trying to show is that science cannot possibly be objective - unless we are to skew the meaning of objective in order to make science objective.

If you are going to challenge me and argue against me from ignorance, then how can you possibly claim objectivity? If all assumptions are based on assumptions, then the claim that not all assumptions are equal MUST necessarily be based on assumption itself and therefore the claim to objectivity is again baseless. Not to mention there is again no "objective" standard by which assumptions can be compared.

In which case, the claim that science is objective CONTINUES to be moronic and indefensible. A pitiful argument from ignorance, arrogance, and subjectivism.

Edit: Did I mention that the assumption that empiricism is practical happens to be viciously circular?

How foolish. You toss out any basis for knowledge and then propose an 'objective' assertion? What can 'objectively' possibly mean in context?

In case you have not noticed, 'objective' happens to be in quotes, which indicates that I was being sarcastic in response to claims of science's objectivity. Therefore your claim that such statement is foolish is simply baseless, presumptuous, and simply arrogant. Not that it would be different from what I have pointed out above.

Yes, they are. Recall that ID positions itself as science. This places it on the same playing field as Evolution. It fails to uphold the rules of the game and thus fails. All else being equal, ID is simply a lie; it pretends to be something it's not. Even given epistemological uncertainty it fails a logical test.

~Raithere

*Guffaws*

You just admit there is no basis to science but presumptuous faith and then you say it fails to uphold the rules of the game. At LEAST qualify your statements. I am NOT defending ID but rather uncovering a false defense for what it truly is.

 

[§outh§tar]

Certainly not all science is truly objective. But Experiments/Observations which can be replicated independently are a hell of a lot mroe objective than people buying into some mythology/superstition first and then trying to come up with rational justifications for it!

Gravity, read my post above.

IF some science is a "lot more objective" than other beliefs, then you are arbitrarily and subjectively fabricating a phantom standard by which to triumphantly conclude that science is indeed a lot more subjective.

Why?

Because, as I have pointed out above, science does not rest on any such 'objective' foundations. Therefore any claims thereof concerning its objectivity are necessarily baseless, ad hoc, and purely subjective.

You can choose to believe it is objective if you want to - I won't stop anyone. But it is a whole different thing to insist it is 'more objective' than other faiths.

 

[SkinWalker]

Science is, without a doubt, infinitely more objective than "belief" as it applies to the religious and supernatural.

This is easily demonstrated by simply noting that within science there exists a culture of question, doubt, and criticism, each of which is an accepted form of objectivity. In looking at religion or the supernatural, these characteristics are shunned as heresy or avoided in favor of "faith."

Science depends upon objectivity in order to test hypotheses and develop theories. When conducting scientific study, it is common for the researcher to test even those hypotheses which he or she feels are incorrect. Show me a religion or organized belief system (such as that which follows John Edwards' ability to "channel")that does this. Does Christianity suggest the Trinity is divine but also test the notion that it is Satan that is the supreme being instead of God? Do the average believers of John Edwards' abilities consider that he may have really good researchers that dig into the lives of the audeince from the moment they purchase tickets?

In examining a scientific notion, this is the kind of objectivity you will see. Empiricism is quite logical: Observation and experience give rise to hypotheses and prediction. Without observed or experienced data (empiricism) nothing can be known. If that is false, then what other ways would you suggest one can "know?"

 

[Raithere]

We don't know a better way, so that justifies what we settle for. Whether or not you claim it is pragmatic does not make it any less of an argument from ignorance.

*YAWN*

I have explained myself sufficiently. Further, I find your argument hypocritical, if you truly held the position you're stating you would have nothing to posit. There is simply nothing to state, objective or otherwise.

All I am trying to show is that science cannot possibly be objective

Please understand this. Without a foundation you cannot "show" anything. You have no basis for comparison, judgment, understanding, knowledge, or opinion.

At least I know what my assumptions are and readily declare them... you're operating from some unknown and apparently untenable pov.

You just admit there is no basis to science but presumptuous faith and then you say it fails to uphold the rules of the game.

You don't read to well, do you? I said no such thing. What I said is that science does indeed operate under the assumption of empiricism. Given that ID purports to operate from the same assumptions (i.e. it declares itself science), it fails regardless of the ultimate veracity of the assumption. Get it?

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

Science is, without a doubt, infinitely more objective than "belief" as it applies to the religious and supernatural.

This is easily demonstrated by simply noting that within science there exists a culture of question, doubt, and criticism, each of which is an accepted form of objectivity. In looking at religion or the supernatural, these characteristics are shunned as heresy or avoided in favor of "faith."

From Wikipedia:

Subjective truths are those with which we are most intimately acquainted. That I like broccoli or that I have a pain in my foot are both subjectively true. Metaphysical subjectivism holds that all we have are such truths. That is, that all we can know about are, one way or another, our own subjective experiences. This view does not necessarily reject realism. But at the least it claims that we cannot have direct knowledge of the real world.

In contrast, objective truths are supposed in some way to be independent of our subjective beliefs and tastes. Such truths would subsist not in the mind but in the external object.​

Now, some questions which should be simple enough for you to respond to, since the others apparently refuse/are unable to answer:

This is easily demonstrated by simply noting that within science there exists a culture of question, doubt, and criticism, each of which is an accepted form of objectivity. In looking at religion or the supernatural, these characteristics are shunned as heresy or avoided in favor of "faith."

1) Since when did a culture of skepticism equate with objectivism? Does that then mean that ID proponents are objective since they too are skeptics? Or will you arbitrarily and subjectively define what kind of skepticism is necessary for objectivism?

Science is, without a doubt, infinitely more objective than "belief" as it applies to the religious and supernatural.

2) Please cite the non-arbitrary standard with which you concluded that science is "infinitely more objective" than belief. Arguments from ignorance and circular arguments excepted. Remember too in your response that science, as I have shown repeatedly, is not founded on any "objective" basis.

Science depends upon objectivity in order to test hypotheses and develop theories.

Incorrect.

In fact, this is circular reasoning. Science assumes objectivity in order to test and develop theories.

There is a difference, you know. But I wait for you - any of you - to qualify your statements.

When conducting scientific study, it is common for the researcher to test even those hypotheses which he or she feels are incorrect. Show me a religion or organized belief system (such as that which follows John Edwards' ability to "channel")that does this. Does Christianity suggest the Trinity is divine but also test the notion that it is Satan that is the supreme being instead of God? Do the average believers of John Edwards' abilities consider that he may have really good researchers that dig into the lives of the audeince from the moment they purchase tickets?

We are not debating Christianity or televangelism in this case.

The claim is that science is "objective". As I stated before, I don't care if that is what people choose to arbitrarily believe. But the problem arises when people claim that science is "infinitely more objective" than another faith system. But I await the qualification for these claims all the same.

In examining a scientific notion, this is the kind of objectivity you will see. Empiricism is quite logical: Observation and experience give rise to hypotheses and prediction. Without observed or experienced data (empiricism) nothing can be known. If that is false, then what other ways would you suggest one can "know?"

Again, this is the argument from ignorance.

I did not say it was "wrong". I never said that at all. What I did say however, is that the claim that "empiricism is quite logical" is based on circular reasoning. As far as I am concerned, no one here who adamantly believes science is objective has been able in the least bit to qualify that claim without appealing to ignorance or employing circular reasoning.

So, for the umpteenth time, can anyone qualify the absurd assumption that science is more objective than *insert faith* without resorting to circularity or arguments from ignorance?

EDIT: Just to remind you as I did the others who the burden of proof lies on.

 

[Gravity]

Because, as I have pointed out above, science does not rest on any such 'objective' foundations. Therefore any claims thereof concerning its objectivity are necessarily baseless, ad hoc, and purely subjective.

You can choose to believe it is objective if you want to - I won't stop anyone. But it is a whole different thing to insist it is 'more objective' than other faiths.

Now that is true idiocy! Certainly some of the more complex areas of science could be subjectively biased. However to state that science has no objective foundation is very silly! I drop a leaf in water, I observe and record what happens. I drop a rock in water, I observe and record what happens. Now my theory's about WHY they two behave differently could be subjective, but my observations and recording of the different behaviors are objective.

You clearly are yourself seeing the universe through lenses so colored by some ''faith'' some some sort that nothing can possibly appear objective to you! Let me guess, some flavor of Juedo-Christianity?

 

[§outh§tar]

I have explained myself sufficiently. Further, I find your argument hypocritical, if you truly held the position you're stating you would have nothing to posit. There is simply nothing to state, objective or otherwise.

Seeing as the burden of proof is on you, I don't see how asking me to prove you wrong is at all sensible. When someone tells you that there are no such things as atoms, do you consider it logical for them to challenge you to disprove it?

You don't read to well, do you? I said no such thing. What I said is that science does indeed operate under the assumption of empiricism. Given that ID purports to operate from the same assumptions (i.e. it declares itself science), it fails regardless of the ultimate veracity of the assumption. Get it?

And for the millionth time, qualify that statement without resorting to circularity or arguments from ignorance.

Good luck.

You apparently have no understanding of the way arguments work.

When YOU make the claim, the burden of proof is not on me. It is for YOU to qualify your claim that science is objective. Asking me to prove another way is simply dishonesty on your part.

Up till now, you continue to pretend you have not seen my simple request. And to think you call ME a hypocrite?

Qualify.

 

[§outh§tar]

However to state that science has no objective foundation is very silly!

Since you are the one making the claim, guess where the burden of proof lies? So, did your assumptions on empiricism also have an "objective foundation"?

If so, qualify.

That is all I am asking everyone and yet everyone will attack me on every end and yet everyone will slyly fail to respond to what should be a simple request.

 

[Gravity]

Its fairly clear that anything you disagree with is an "ignorant and circular argument".

Simple proof that science is more realistic and objective than faith. I shoot you with a gun, you die (gun = product of science). But pray all you want for me to die, it will make no difference.

 

[duendy]

hmmmmm interesting you should choose a 'gun' for your illustration of the supremacy 0f SCIENCE OVER SPIRITUALITY. for that is the name/nature of the--YOUR--game

 

[Gravity]

hmmmmm interesting you should choose a 'gun' for your illustration of the supremacy 0f SCIENCE OVER SPIRITUALITY. for that is the name/nature of the--YOUR--game

Bullshit, it may have been a bit of an off the cuff and hostile in nature retort - but Right Wing Christians are overall the most bloodthirsty and heavily armed people on the planet. The Christian fundamentists of America are just like the Taliban, they just follow a different book.

(I don't even own a gun, gave them up long ago thank you. Try again.)

 

[§outh§tar]

Its fairly clear that anything you disagree with is an "ignorant and circular argument".

Simple proof that science is more realistic and objective than faith. I shoot you with a gun, you die (gun = product of science). But pray all you want for me to die, it will make no difference.

Like I said, you will do everything to attack my statement.

But you will not - can not - oblige to a simple request.

 

[Gravity]

WTF are you talking about? What simple request? You attack everybodys statements with equal vitriol as you whine about them doing to yours.

 

[qwerasdfzxcv]

scorpius you also left out all the websites that prove evolution isn't possible. Don't just look at one side of everything buddy.

 

[Raithere]

§outh§tar,

I'm really not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. I've already given you the point that from an epistemological stance science, just like everything else, is unfounded. But please note my point; everything, including your arguments and assertions, are consequently unfounded. You cannot claim a rational standpoint under this presumption, it doesn't exist. This epistemological reduction is self defeating, accepting the premise refutes argument you're trying to make.

If we accept your premise we are simply two fools babbling nonsense at each other (actually we can't even establish that, we cannot establish anything). Without a foundation there is not even a basis for communication. Since you continue to argue, it is clear that you do not operate under this presumption. That you operate under some presumption of congruent, external, reality. So please drop the front that you are positing a logical argument after having removed any possible support for a logical argument.

I gave you a few alternative measures to epistemology. The primary one would simply be internal consistency, for which ID fails because it is not what it claims to be, it fails against its own internal measures. Another is simple pragmatism. The third is that to have an operational paradigm one must, out of necessity, assume certain premises.

I would go on to argue that not all assumptions are equal but you're haven't even reached the point that you're aware of their necessity yet. (I've mentioned congruency but you've blithely wandered by.)

Frankly, you're sounding like a petulant child with a new found toy. Having discovered that epistemology reduces to unfounded premises you're whacking away at anything that comes along thinking you've found the ultimate counter to any argument. Your argument reduces to, "how can you know that you know anything". Given. Point taken. This is not a new and original discovery by you; Plato wrestled with it over 2000 years ago when he came up with his sun allegory. I suggest that you move on, like Plato did, and accept that certain assumptions are simply necessary because you're current approach is a dead end.

~Raithere

 

[Gravity]

Raithere, well spoken - but unfortunately also quite clearly past SS's intellectual capacity.

 

[Athelwulf]

§outh§tar, this should resolve this once and for all.

Most, if not all, intelligent design pedalers believe some deity made the universe only because some antient book tells them so. They don't bother to direct a critical eye to it. "Dudes! This bigger dude called God made the universe! We know kuz this dude that lived 5000 years ago said so. We're right, ye'r wrong, so there!"

Scientists actually sit down and investigate. They use their critical eye to figure out what really is the case. They don't take some idea seriously until it's found that that idea is even valid. Because of this, we can trust scientists.

Religion is fantasy.

Science is fact.

Got it?

Qwerasdfzcxv, welcome to SciForums. Ya have a kool name.

scorpius you also left out all the websites that prove evolution isn't possible.

Could ya give us some examples?

Don't just look at one side of everything buddy.

Oh? Have you looked at the sites in favor of evolution?

89 posts to go!

 

[§outh§tar]

Raithere,

As I stated quite clearly before: I DDON'T CARE if anyone assumes science is objective, I really don't.

But you and I both know, that claiming that science is "MORE objective" than *insert faith* requires substantiation. This is all I have been asking for. It is no different than you asking for substantiation if it is to be claimed that God is more likely to exist than not. Claims require substantiation.

I do not need for you to prove to me that science is objective. I am sorry if that is what my statements implied. I thought my comments on the absence of any standard by which to make a comparison would suffice, but apparently not. All you need to do is qualify the claim that it is "more objective" not that science's foundation is objective. The reason I began with that was simply to demonstrate that without an objective basis for science, the claim that it science was "more objective" than *insert faith* could not possibly be substantiated either. But according to Gravity, this is indeed possible and so does the mantra remain: Qualify.

If you are however prepared to admit that the comparison is as foundationless, then we have no disagreement. As you may perhaps be able to infer, it would be absurd for me to question science's assumptions while simultaneously questioning the said comparison for would not the former deny the latter? From this, I hope it is obvious that my intent was not to challenge science's presumptions themselves, but the claims made concerning these presumptions (that they are "more objective").


EDIT: As for the unnecessary ad hominems, I will only count them as bait in the argument for ignorance.

 

[cole grey]

Chapter 8 Evolution-

In this chapter we will discuss the process of the evolution of life. We may or may not get into all of the various arguments that have arisen within the field, regarding all the specific ideas presented, but we will give a basic description of evolution as a scientific theory that is probably the best available explanation for the origin and further development of biological life, based on our current data.

In the past, this subject has been a bone of contention between the religious and non-religious, but it is not within the scope of this textbook to show whether or not there was any outside influence on the biological processes herein described. We do not have scientific proof that the forces involved are purely random, nor do we have scientific proof for an intelligent designer. This book is not a texbook on religion, or philosophy, but rather on science.

In the year 1800 a frenchman named Lamarck, professor at the national museum of history in France, presented his evolutionary theories, blah, blah, blah...

(If you don't like the "probably" and any other anti-inflammatories thrown in to appease the creationists, you obviously don't know anything about dealing with "democratic" institutions. Remember it isn't your classroom, it is our classroom.)