True. But I think an attempt to oversimplify was the cause of the problem.
I don’t know what kind of debate you observed, but in most public debates of the “science vs. religion” type the debaters are trying to get the point across within a specific time period. If the debater is trying to convince an audience he may also try to avoid statements heavy with qualifiers. This leads to statements which are oversimplified and imprecise but which are easier to remember. In an attempt to talk down to the audience, the debater makes a statement which is wrong.
This is why the anti-science types love these debates to begin with. If the format lent itself to precise and complex investigation of an issue, they’d probably loose.
BTY, does it really matter if the statement is axiomatic or incongrous. We pretty much agree that it’s wrong.
I disagree. “Oversimplifying” assumes that the proponent had thought the matter through, but was deliberately glossing over the details. In contrast, the statement presented was fundamentally wrong in numerous ways, most of them fairly self-evident.
True. However, a good debater will avoid making careless statements that will trap him later on.
In addition, the claim “Science is the only way to know the truth” was fundamental to the debater’s defense. He even challenged his opponent by saying, “Can you show me an example of truth that is NOT learned through science?” So obviously, this wasn’t just a matter of oversimplifying in order to save time.
BTW, he got thoroughly pulverized at that point. His opponent even pointed out one thing which I’ve mentioned right here – that scientific axioms are an example of truth that is not scientifically established.
I don’t know why you say that. I have yet to meet a pro-religion debater who is “anti-science.” The ones I’ve observed do claim that science is not the only path to knowledge, but that’s a far cry from saying that they’re “anti-science.” (In fact, a large number of the ones I’ve observed actually hold science degrees, or have invoked scientific studies in their debates.)
Well, an “anti-science” debater probably would lose, but that’s not really relevant to the debates which I’ve observed.
Science is the way to the truth. Science does not “deal” with truths because it has not yet arrived at the truth. But science is moving the direction of the truth and every day it is closer to it than it was the day before. Science has such high regard for the idea of truth that it never presumes to have it completely in its grasp.
The question is, are there any other fields of human inquiry which do make such presumtions?
Perhaps we could paraphrase Winston Churchill and say, “Science is the worst way to find the truth, except for all the others that have been tried”.
Let’s leave the logical debates on the meaning of the words “truth” and “science” alone right now. If you’re looking to know about the deaths of stars, then the branch of science known as astronomy is the path you take. If you’re worried about the karmic realignment of your immortal soul, you check out some religions.
But if you’re looking for The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything, well, good luck, you need it.
On further reflection, I guess the statement is a bit over-reaching. There’s a direction in which I could continue arguing, but it presumes quite a bit of knowledge on the part of the speaker of that sentence. So I cede…for now.
Your statement is flawed. You speak of science as if it operates as a single cohesive entity and deals in absolutes. At its best (and admittedly it does not always work) science is meant to be self-correcting. Upon the introduction of conflicting data, new investigations are carried out and hypotheses reformed. A competent research publishes not only his results, but his methods so that peers can repeat or refute his findings as the case may be.
You seem to be saying that science cannot check itself, when in fact different disciplines, approaches, techniques, and other cross checks are employed.
Hey, I’m not the one who made the original claim. I fully acknowledge that there are certain things which only science can discern. However, if you’re going to talk about truth in general, then it’s foolish to assert that science is the only way to discern it.
'Course, based on the rest of your post, it looks like you agree with that.
I said nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary; I agreed with the previous statements that science does not deal with absolute truth.
I’m merely pointing out that the original claim – the one which I criticized – is self-contradictory. Apparently, this distinction is still lost on a good number of you.
Look, there are at least two problems with the proposition that I critiqued:
(1) It is self-refuting, and
(2) It presumes an erroneous view of science.
These two problems are not mutually exclusive. Several of you have pointed out Problem (2), and rightfully so. However, this does not disprove Problem (1).
Yes, science is self-correcting. Yes, science does not deal with absolute truth. Yes, science uses axiomatic statements. None of those statements negates the fact that the original claim contradicts itself. A statement can be inconsistent and have an erroneous premise at the same time, and this is one such example.
Sorry. Since many people treat “religion” and “Christianity” as though they were interchangeable terms, I hope you understand why I didn’t assume it to be a joke. (Particularly since it was followed by a serious discussion of the term “science.”)
If the purpose of your thread is to state that someone, somewhere, made a badly made vague statement about science, we all agree with you. If you are trying to make another more specific statement, could you please do so?
In simpler terms-Could you please get to the point?
Pay attention, then. I made the point several times. I asked people if they noticed the incongruity in the original statement… and then I pointed it out.
Unfortunately, several people used the nature of science to assert that there was no contradiction. While their views of science were accurate, this does nothing to show that there’s no contradiction – as I’ve repeatedly tried to explain.
If the mistake you are pointing out is one of grammar, you are doing so in rather an overdramatic way. If you are trying to point out a mistake in logic, we are telling you that the statement, as given, is of no consequence and not worth discussing. If you are trying, in some vague roundabout way, to point out another method to reach the “truth”, please tell us this method.
But realize this-If no one is getting even the main point of your thread, perhaps the fault lies not with the students, but with the teacher.
I see. So you’re now speaking for the Teeming Millions. How nice.
It was a simple exercise in logic – nothing more. If you can’t deal with that, then that’s your own problem.
Sigh. Look, I am not trying to present another means to arriving at truth – nor did I ever claim to do so. Don’t believe me? Then look back at the responses which I posted.
Sigh. It was a simple exercise in logic – which is why I posted it in MPSIMS. Since you petulantly insist that I produce some deeper meaning behind this exercise, I submit that the fault lies with the student, rather than the teacher.
JT: I am either obtuse, or the contradiction is not as apparent as you think. As has already been pointed out, ‘science’ is not the equivalent of some wise man on a mountaintop both proclaiming the truth and acting as the judge as to what is true and what isn’t. Look at more as a method, or even a bag of tools. Used correctly, it will get the job done, and yes the same set of tools can be used to check on how well that job was done.
If you have some better process in mind than scientific methods, please share.
Let’s try it this way. Going back to the original badly thought-out statement you gave as an example-what exactly was the incongruity you found with the statement?
