Religion not Science

"Don't post anything racist/misogynistic/pornographic, loli images, or any animated GIFs and you should be fine, haha!" The Raytownian

Moderator: xome

Post Reply
User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Religion not Science

Post by jliat » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:10 am

It's clear the electric universe “theorists” don't sign up to the notion of refutability which is a hallmark of science, that and its always provisional nature. Which is a clear indication of it being pseudo-science. However it has (and some here concur) some additional features, in the case for instance of the idea of “progress” and in Thornhill's “We are not hopelessly isolated in time and space on a tiny rock, orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy. We are hopefully connected with the power and intelligence of the universe.”

The hope for a connection with a supposed intelligent power – so a religion.

killing raven sun
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Religion not Science

Post by killing raven sun » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:56 am

you say you cant understand science papers so you dont even bother reading them, then you posit that you can determine between "real" science and pseudoscience, how exactly?

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Religion not Science

Post by jliat » Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:51 am

killing raven sun wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:56 am
you say you cant understand science papers so you dont even bother reading them, then you posit that you can determine between "real" science and pseudoscience, how exactly?
Hmmm you seem to have problems with this. How - by the philosophy of science. Which studies its methods and forms.

(And please - not science papers - but ones that use fairly complex mathematics. I can get as far as The Calculus, binary i'm very happy with.)

killing raven sun
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Religion not Science

Post by killing raven sun » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:21 am

jliat wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:51 am
killing raven sun wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:56 am
you say you cant understand science papers so you dont even bother reading them, then you posit that you can determine between "real" science and pseudoscience, how exactly?
by the philosophy of science.
:lol: oh mah gawd :lol: so philosophy is observational science, you are stupid :lol:

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Religion not Science

Post by jliat » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:49 am

killing raven sun wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:21 am
jliat wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:51 am
killing raven sun wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:56 am
you say you cant understand science papers so you dont even bother reading them, then you posit that you can determine between "real" science and pseudoscience, how exactly?
by the philosophy of science.
:lol: oh mah gawd :lol: so philosophy is observational science, you are stupid :lol:
No philosophy is not an observational science. You really need to pay attention.

Hegel called his main work 'The Science of Logic' he considered - back then as others, philosophy a science, as well as maths. And of course maths isnt 'observational' in the scientific sense.

Conversely physics was often called natural philosophy! Confusing for you maybe. Sorry its not me - its the real world.

killing raven sun
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Religion not Science

Post by killing raven sun » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:21 am

jliat wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:49 am
No philosophy is not an observational science.
which means you are unable to speak to observation, logic is not facts

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Religion not Science

Post by jliat » Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:08 am

killing raven sun wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:21 am
jliat wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:49 am
No philosophy is not an observational science.
which means you are unable to speak to observation, logic is not facts
Sorry i cant quite follow that. Of course one can speak to observation. The history of philosophy has a fair amount of that. In science a question should always be 'how reliable is the observation' Famously 'mayflies think its always summer'. Or Descartes doubting everything the senses gives. From Brains in Vats to computer simulations. Through to observing a flat earth fixed and moving sun and stars above...


As i look out now at a grey sky - i observe no sun. Think about this - phenomenology - we see a table, but construct it as a 3d thing, we dont see all sides, but 'construct' it as 3d. Objects are 'intended' not just observed...

I dont observe you, or you me... but you reply... to something you intend.

killing raven sun
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Religion not Science

Post by killing raven sun » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:32 am

jliat wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:08 am
killing raven sun wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:21 am
jliat wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:49 am
No philosophy is not an observational science.
which means you are unable to speak to observation, logic is not facts
Sorry i cant quite follow that. Of course one can speak to observation.
no, you can make an observation but you cannot explain it, you already admit you dont know the sciences, you are just a philosopher!


User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Religion not Science

Post by jliat » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:32 am

Well i'm not just a philosopher. I'm not a philosopher. I have read and studied philosophy. And I never made any such admittance re science.

I'm not a scientist, Wil Thornhill isn't an Astrophysicist or are you. I think you said Cook / Gardner, and very good at both.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests