It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ben Carson: Religion is needed to interpret science because ‘maybe it’s just propaganda’

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


You cannot get *to* the scientific method without inductive reasoning.


i can think of other methods that are little more than straight-up inductive reasoning. and they employ it far less effectively as well.




posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Sorry bud. You are completely wrong about science. Deductive reasoning is used to formulate laws and 99% of scientific conclusions. It is NOT reliant on inductive reasoning, NOR is inductive reasoning used to make scientific conclusions. You have falsely claimed this numerous times. Sorry that you don't understand the very basics of the scientific method.

This is where our encounter ends. You didn't back up the claim I requested, and you refuse to converse like an adult. You essentially have no argument other than "what if". You have to do better than that. All scientific observations point to the laws staying true. If you wish to suggest they can change YOU need evidence of this. To suggest that scientific laws can change, the burden of proof is on you as this has NEVER happened, and if they did change we would likely not exist to observe such a thing.

You tried, but your arguments are fallacious and full of holes. Good luck to you in the future. Maybe you can sell what you are preaching to some suckers out there, but that isn't going to work with folks who understand science.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: StalkerSolent



Sorry bud. You are completely wrong about science. Deductive reasoning is used to formulate laws and 99% of scientific conclusions.
It is NOT reliant on inductive reasoning, NOR is inductive reasoning used to make scientific conclusions. You have falsely claimed this numerous times. Sorry that you don't understand the very basics of the scientific method.


You. Are. Not. Listening. To. What. I. Am. Saying. Or I'm explaining it poorly, but I doubt it. That's OK.




This is where our encounter ends. You didn't back up the claim I requested, and you refuse to converse like an adult.


Which claim? You asked for a lot of things, and I've done my best to accommodate you. I've pointed you towards data indicating that philosophy uses deductive reasoning (which, according to you, would make it objective) I've explained to you how science is founded upon assumptions that are not scientific...indeed, assumptions that cannot be tested scientifically, assumptions such as "our perception of the universe is accurate" and "the laws of the universe remain constant even when we cannot measure them." (The old question: if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?) I'm not certain what conversing like an adult sounds like, but I had hoped it would involve rational discussion, a denial of ignorance, and a desire to come to the truth.




You essentially have no argument other than "what if". You have to do better than that.


According to you, perhaps




All scientific observations point to the laws staying true. If you wish to suggest they can change YOU need evidence of this. To suggest that scientific laws can change, the burden of proof is on you as this has NEVER happened, and if they did change we would likely not exist to observe such a thing.


You are missing the thrust of my argument. I'm not arguing that scientific laws change. I'm arguing that we assume that they don't, and that assumption exists because we have never observed it happening before. As far as I know, this is true.




You tried, but your arguments are fallacious and full of holes.

I don't like making fallacies. If I am, please demonstrate it to me formally.



Good luck to you in the future.

Same to you!




Maybe you can sell what you are preaching to some suckers out there, but that isn't going to work with folks who understand science.


In the past, when I've dialogued with other ATS members who are into science, we've been able to have a mutually respectful dialogue, and they've taken the time to understand my arguments. It does "work" with folks who understand science, so long as they are first and foremost interested in truth.



 
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join