Liberty on a mission

[Guisslapp]

Truth is not knowledge. Truth is the property of knowledge being actually correct. "Valid" is a determination of the correctness of knowledge based on the rigorous application of logic and the self-evident axioms upon which logic itself is predicated.

This does leave open the possibility of valid knowledge not being true, which statistically must occur from time to time. But we don't get to work with truth, only knowledge, and science provides a basis for dealing with previously valid knowledge that becomes known to be invalid. Religion doesn't.

[Blue Dawg]

Science also has become entrenched in our secular societies, where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state; church referring to religion. Many governments believe that science offers objective truth. Thus, the "church of science" has become united with the actions of the state. The divided scientific community's decisions on certain aspects, abortion (is a fetus legally a human or are humans human after birth), how to determine when someone has died (brain death, heart death), climate change (human interference or natural phenomena, or both), scientific testimony being excepted in court (see above), etc.... define the political climate and have recently begun to define our law. I'm not saying that these features have not helped society, because in many ways they have, but just as science is not completely, objectively 100% true, nor has its total indoctrination in western law and governance been objectively helpful. I'm 75% for, 25% against.

Good, but I'd modify this to more reflect science's status as a tool. It can't really be true or false in the fact that a fact arrived at by scientific study or metaphysical self-consistency can be.

[Bearpaw]

Truth is not knowledge. Truth is the property of knowledge being actually correct. "Valid" is a determination of the correctness of knowledge based on the rigorous application of logic and the self-evident axioms upon which logic itself is predicated.

This does leave open the possibility of valid knowledge not being true, which statistically must occur from time to time. But we don't get to work with truth, only knowledge, and science provides a basis for dealing with previously valid knowledge that becomes known to be invalid. Religion doesn't.

I'll say it again, do you accept any knowledge without believing it to be true? I accept the knowledge that there is an objective truth. And you're wrong in that statement, Christianity holds both the old and new testament to be valid knowledge. With the coming of Christ, previous knowledge became invalid from the old testament. For instance, the right to stone people to death. In the old testament, it was permissible to stone people to death for certain sins. In the new, Jesus taught that only God should judge the people based on their actions, not the people. The previous knowledge that stoning was permissible was now invalid.

ALSO, will you please answer this question: If you, and many in the world today, were not taught the principles of science from the age of 6-7, would you be so passionate to believe the knowledge gained through science?

[Bearpaw]

Good, but I'd modify this to more reflect science's status as a tool. It can't really be true or false in the fact that a fact arrived at by scientific study or metaphysical self-consistency can be.

I'll give you that

[Guisslapp]

Science also has become entrenched in our secular societies, where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state; church referring to religion. Many governments believe that science offers objective truth. Thus, the "church of science" has become united with the actions of the state. The divided scientific community's decisions on certain aspects, [1] abortion (is a fetus legally a human or are humans human after birth), [2] how to determine when someone has died (brain death, heart death), [3] climate change (human interference or natural phenomena, or both), [4] scientific testimony being excepted in court (see above), etc.... define the political climate and have recently begun to define our law. I'm not saying that these features have not helped society, because in many ways they have, but just as science is not completely, objectively 100% true, nor has its total indoctrination in western law and governance been objectively helpful. I'm 75% for, 25% against.

.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I know I said I wasn't going to do a line by line, and I hope this is the last time, but what you said her is a complete misrepresentation of science.

The issues you have identified involve application of scientific concepts to issues of morality and law. That is not the province of science.

[1] the definition of a "person" (not human) is a legal construct found in the US Constitution. The SC in Roe v Wade considered opinions of religious leaders, scientists and moralists to determine the criteria by which they would define something as a person for purposes of having constitutional rights. The scientists didn't disagree about scientific facts relating to fetal development.

[2] Death is also a term of art, having legal significance. The act of dying can occur in different stages and "death" is us trying to distill the process into a definitive test for legal purposes.

[3] Climate change. Again this is the application of science to policy. There isn't much scientific debate over the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and that humans play a role in that, as do natural processes. We don't have sufficient data for our current models (or good enough models for our current data) to make accurate, specific predictions to inform policy. Politics is out ahead of research in this area - motivated by both good and bad reasons. This is just what happens when scientists are asked to draw conclusions from low confidence models.

[4] this reflects legal principles that are predicated more on traditional western legal principles than science. We err on the side of the defendant and so expert testimony can be excluded where the court feels like it is legally unreliable or where it otherwise injures a defendants constitutional rights (such as right to confront and cross examine).

[Guisslapp]

ALSO, will you please answer this question: If you, and many in the world today, were not taught the principles of science from the age of 6-7, would you be so passionate to believe the knowledge gained through science?

I grew up in Louisiana so I was still learning to tie my shoes at that age.

[Bearpaw]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I know I said I wasn't going to do a line by line, and I hope this is the last time, but what you said her is a complete misrepresentation of science.

The issues you have identified involve application of scientific concepts to issues of morality and law. That is not the province of science.

[1] the definition of a "person" (not human) is a legal construct found in the US Constitution. The SC in Roe v Wade considered opinions of religious leaders, scientists and moralists to determine the criteria by which they would define something as a person for purposes of having constitutional rights. The scientists didn't disagree about scientific facts relating to fetal development.

[2] Death is also a term of art, having legal significance. The act of dying can occur in different stages and "death" is us trying to distill the process into a definitive test for legal purposes.

[3] Climate change. Again this is the application of science to policy. There isn't much scientific debate over the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and that humans play a role in that, as do natural processes. We don't have sufficient data for our current models (or good enough models for our current data) to make accurate, specific predictions to inform policy. Politics is out ahead of research in this area - motivated by both good and bad reasons. This is just what happens when scientists are asked to draw conclusions from low confidence models.

[4] this reflects legal principles that are predicated more on traditional western legal principles than science. We err on the side of the defendant and so expert testimony can be excluded where the court feels like it is legally unreliable or where it otherwise injures a defendants constitutional rights (such as right to confront and cross examine).

On this point I agree with you. It's not true science which is being used in our government, but the religion of science. By that I mean those who unknowingly hold the interpretations by a portion of the scientific community to be objective truths. In other instances, some politicians may use portions of the scientific communities findings to support an agenda. In the first case, this usage of the objective truths found by science presents a state religion. Those who understand that science only produces subjective knowledge, facts, and truths understand that science cannot produce objective truths. As for CO2 in the atmosphere, it's debatable. Our sensors were designed by erroneous beings, and thus can be wrong. We also possess a small sample size, in that we are detecting these levels in finite places, over finite intermittent periods, and comparing the data over the last few decades. Assuming that we are correct that CO2 levels are higher than when we began testing, I don't deny that climate change may be caused by humans, but I'm not 100% convinced. It is further possible that some natural event may have caused this increase in CO2 levels, as many scientists theorize has happened in the past. Again, this data is fallible.

[Bearpaw]

I grew up in Louisiana so I was still learning to tie my shoes at that age.

Ok, whenever age you began to learn chemistry, physics, biology, etc. If you had only learned it after learning your religion first, philosophically do you think you would be so adamant a champion of science?

[Guisslapp]

Ok, whenever age you began to learn chemistry, physics, biology, etc. If you had only learned it after learning your religion first, philosophically do you think you would be so adamant a champion of science?

I did learn religion first.

[Bearpaw]

I did learn religion first.

Good to know. Then I hope you learned a little from considering the rebuttal.

[PawDawg]

I did learn religion first.

Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship.

[Guisslapp]

On this point I agree with you. It's not true science which is being used in our government, but the religion of science. By that I mean those who unknowingly hold the interpretations by a portion of the scientific community to be objective truths. In other instances, some politicians may use portions of the scientific communities findings to support an agenda. In the first case, this usage of the objective truths found by science presents a state religion. Those who understand that science only produces subjective knowledge, facts, and truths understand that science cannot produce objective truths. As for CO2 in the atmosphere, it's debatable. Our sensors were designed by erroneous beings, and thus can be wrong. We also possess a small sample size, in that we are detecting these levels in finite places, over finite intermittent periods, and comparing the data over the last few decades. Assuming that we are correct that CO2 levels are higher than when we began testing, I don't deny that climate change may be caused by humans, but I'm not 100% convinced. It is further possible that some natural event may have caused this increase in CO2 levels, as many scientists theorize has happened in the past. Again, this data is fallible.

I don't disagree about climate change. Not statistically certain but the evidence points that way. If we were convinced there would be no harm in waiting for the research to catch up, then there would be no reason to do anything about it now. As it stands, I think it is responsible to look for international options to reduce anthro CO2 while balancing the needs for energy. But this a complicated issue of statistical risk and cost-benefit balancing happening in a forum driven by local, national, and international political motivations. It is just beyond science.

Outside of climate change, politicians are far more likely to support religion over your so-called religion of science, whether it is blatantly such as political leaders referring to us a Christian nation or nation founded under J-C principles or whether it is through laws and policies directed to religious dog-whistles like "family values", "defense of marriage" etc.

The opposition is not really promoting science as an alternative, but morals and values that have developed culturally since the enlightenment and age of reason - fairness, justice, equality, etc.

[Bearpaw]

Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship.

Truth, the search for the Way, the (objective) truth, and the life. The relationship with the one who is our creator/love (Father), savior/hope (Son), and inspiration/faith (Holy Spirit/Ghost)

[OLDBLUE]

Truth is not knowledge. Truth is the property of knowledge being actually correct. "Valid" is a determination of the correctness of knowledge based on the rigorous application of logic and the self-evident axioms upon which logic itself is predicated.

This does leave open the possibility of valid knowledge not being true, which statistically must occur from time to time. But we don't get to work with truth, only knowledge, and science provides a basis for dealing with previously valid knowledge that becomes known to be invalid. Religion doesn't.

Don't know about "Religion," but so far as Christianity - because of its source.

[OLDBLUE]

A little late but:

hijack sign.jpg