Bullcrud. You have done nothing of the sort. In fact, if you think about it carefully, you would realize that you are making a self-defeating argument.
The rationale of science is that all knowledge comes through sense experience. So to prove that all knowledge comes through sense experience...
All right. Let's see you do it. If science can let you make a computer, then I'd like to see you make a computer using science.
Where's my popcorn? This is going to be awhile.
P.S. You cannot solicit any help nor can you use math because math isn't science.
So you think that changing the words in the tautology affect something?
All right. Let's try this simple experiment. A real scientific theory (like gravity) can make specific, measurable predictions.
If I take a 3 kg object and drop it from a height of 25 feet, how long will it take to hit the...
No, I think you don't understand how fallacies work.
Let's take a sample argument: "What caused the Big Bang to occur?" someone may ask. Science doesn't know. "Aha!" retorts the asker. "Therefore, you must accept my explanation. God did it."
Are you convinced? Of course not. In fact, atheists...
Oh really. So now the theory of natural selection is that the alleles that end up dominating others within living populations are the alleles that end up dominating others within living populations. Thank you so much for clearing that up.</sarcasm>
If you don't see how the comparison is relevant, then it's obvious that you don't understand the argument.
Let's recap. The argument is that natural selection and/or evolution really is scientific because if someone found a perfectly preserved rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian, evolution would...
More logical fallacies.
Look at your argument.
If science works, then planes and computers will work (If P then Q).
Planes and computers work (Q)
Therefore, science works (P).
This is a textbook example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. You may feel better about it all, but...
You are making a ridiculous argument. You are like a person showing someone a sponge and saying, "If this sponge is so wonderful, show me how to use it to drive a nail into the wall."
News flash: Sponges don't do that. That doesn't mean that sponges are not useful. Similarly, logic alone cannot...
No, you have no idea what you're talking about.
From grue
That's the point! The grue paradox shows that there's no way to determine which of the infinite number of competing theories is the correct one until it's too late. Yes, we will know whether the emeralds are grue or green at some future...
Yes, you're quite clear. You're making a stupid argument. You're like a Christian saying, "Okay. How would you use science to determine who does and doesn't go to heaven?" The assumption is that if science cannot resolve this matter to his satisfaction, he will claim that you must therefore...
No, natural selection is not a fact. It's a tautology. In its simplest form, the theory of natural selection says that the animals that reproduce are the animals that reproduce. Then you all swoon as though something amazing was said.
Color me unimpressed.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Biological evolution is merely the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation. That's all it is. Neo-Darwinism includes other ideas such as natural selection and common descent. Together all these ideas form what...
Neither does science. Thank you. Drive through.
No, I'm the kind that suggests that you abandon the things that don't.
You really have no clue, do you? The point of science, properly understood, is not to confirm things. It's to falsify bad theories. A theory that makes no testable predictions...
Affected is very different from falsified. Running into an alien species with its own set of religions would definitely affect Christianity, for example.
Just as finding the skeleton of a crucified Jewish man in a tomb with an inscription "Jesus of Nazareth, alleged King of the Jews" would...
No, that the two methods have so far appeared to have given the same result is remarkable.
Newton's Law of Gravity is different from Einstein's theory. Newton never attempted to explain why gravity occurred. In fact, he said that he could not imagine how such a force could propagate through a...
Theory and Reality
"Suppose we found a well-preserved rabbit fossil in rocks 600 million years old. All our other evidence suggests that the only animals around then were sponges and a few other invertebrates and that mammals did not appear until over 300 million years later. Of course, a good...
Incorrect. From the definition of unhealthy
Unhealthy (adverb)
3. not conducive to good health; unhealthful:
Night air was formerly considered unhealthy.
This is false, but even if it were true, that would merely open the door to something that you reject completely.
In fact, using your same logic we could classify Christianity as scientific. After all, finding Jesus of Nazareth's tomb would effectively falsify all of Christianity. Therefore...
Yes, that's the point. It's called pessimistic induction.
Of course not. You have merely misunderstood the argument. My point is that the biological theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection make no testable predictions.
The problem is that at some point in the future, assuming the Farge/Seutral theory is correct, everything will have a different charge than it has now.