Re: On credulity and religion
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
13 Jul 1996 18:19:20 -0600
In article <smryanDuHxzD.H0H@netcom.com>, @#$%!?! <smryan@netcom.com> wrote:
>: supporting evolutionary theory. Accepting something "on faith" suggests that
>: no evidence for or against a belief exists, which is simply not true in the
>: case of scientific theories. See the sci.origins FAQs for the details
>: regarding evolution.
>
>Sorry, but you still have to take science on faith.
Simply because you say so?
>There is no proof
>the scientific method is the correct method to understand the world,
I listed plenty of evidence (not proof--we need not go there). For
instance, that scientific understanding of parasites, as an important
example, has yielded better cures than faith healer's methods have.
If you can successfully predict aspects of a system, and manipulate the
system predictably, then you have at least roughly approximated that
system with whatever model you're using.
>discussion. Do you enjoy being ridiculed? If not, perhaps you should be
>more diplomatic.
I've not found ridicule to be a powerful, predictive way of knowing. I
have found it to be a shallow shelter for those who would rather not
argue on the plain facts of things, however.
>[On the Bible...]
>Perhaps you should read it. With the exception of the openning chapters,
>it doesn't attempt to explain the physical universe.
Then what is your problem with my saying it's not useful toward that end?!
>: If predictive value is the true measure of the merit of ideas, there's simply
>
>If... There are libraries of arguments tucked away inside that conditional.
Yes, there are. I was stating my own criteria for judging. Care to do
the same, or is it easier to play the Sophist without any ground rules?
Bryant
|