On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Pluto bounces back! > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > This invitation to parse the text for some written truth with a capital T > does not rise to the same level of experimental verification… e.g. religion > does not stand on the same footing as science. > I would not be that quick. The level of experimental verification? Who's experiment assuming what? Experiments to make plants more genetically robust to withstand even more pesticide? That's science laced with poor theology and high profit margin. I agree with Liz on this, we cannot NOT assume/believe, for any reasoning to happen at all. But please make me wrong by showing a line of reasoning that doesn't assume a single thing. Brent has said things sounding like "doesn't matter, whatever works who cares how and why", to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry. But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for people to suffer verdicts of science infallibility. That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with overly untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up with reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp. I'm sick of the camp business frankly. > > > Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion > overarches and encompasses everything, including science. > > > > It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly > deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more > solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions > must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that > it is falsifiable. > You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent weeks display the opposite. You don't even have to invoke different standards between human and exact sciences; even in single domains there is debate as to what constitutes valid proof and evidence. I like the way Logician Julia Robertson apparently put it in one her logic classes in 1969: *A proof is a demonstration that will be accepted by any reasonable person acquainted with the facts.* Contrast/compare with R.L. Wilder: *What is the role of proof? It seems only a testing process that we apply to these suggestions of intuition. Obviously we don't possess, and probably will never possess, any standard of proof that is independent of time, the thing to be proved, or the person or school of thought using it.* > All and any claims by any religion are suspect. > But as suspect only as the claims of any school of thought, sure. > > > > > If a book contains no mistakes in the verifiable part, what chances are > there of it being correct o the non-verifiable part? > > > > Plenty of chances. > In the 1st person private sense that could be wishful thinking in disguise, yes. In the third person shareable sense, you might want to elaborate. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
