How many of those who argue against science actually know anything about science?

[gnostic]

You know, I wouldn't even consider arguing against science -- for one very simple reason: science was my worst subject in school. My sister taught junior high school science for about 25 years and I've always told her that anything over about 4th grade science is over my head. I'm not saying I'm stupid, because there were other subjects in which I excelled. But if a scientist says something about a scientific subject, I'm going to automatically believe him. If a scientist tells me that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Bible tells me it's only 6000 years old, it doesn't matter what I may want to believe. This is a topic which, in my opinion, has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with science, and I'm going to trust the science every time.

In high school, science subject is core subject for every students from Year 7 science to Year 9 science, where you learn bits of sciences, here and there.

So for instances, a bit of physics, a bit of chemistry, a bit of biology, a bit of Earth’s ecology science, and even very tiny bit of astronomy (mainly focused on the Solar System). They were just basic level stuffs.

After Year 9, all sciences were broken down - we were still learning basic “high school” levels, but they only a little more advanced than what were in previous years, getting harder and harder - broken down into separate elective subjects, eg elective physics subject were only taught physics, chemistry subject and biology biology subject.

So from Year 10 to Year 12, students were allowed to choose science subjects for electives, or not doing science electives at all.

For me, I chose to focus on physics, chemistry and maths, so after high school I went on to to college civil engineering course.

My points in all this, after Year 9, I didn’t study biology beyond that of Year 9. All I learned was basic anatomy and physiology, only a tiny fraction about genetics, and learning a bit about animals and plants. For instance, I did cut open rat to look at internal organs. That was it.

In Year 9, we didn’t study DNA or Evolution. That was probably for Year 11 or 12 students who chose to do biology electives.

Although in civil engineering, I did learn about different types of woods that can be used as building materials, and did learn that organic materials can be found in soil testing, there were no studies of evolution in my college course.

I have heard some stuffs about Evolution in some National Geographic documentaries, and heard of words like “mutations” being used in tv series or movies, I had no understanding of Evolution whatsoever, because my Year 9 science didn’t cover Evolution.

So can you imagine how clueless I was in 2003 when I joined my first Internet forums (not here at RF, which I didn’t join until 2006), when I found my way into religion forums, when I come across people arguing Creationism vs Evolution.

I mean I read the Bible when I was teenager, including Genesis creation and flood, but I never heard of Creationism or people who called themselves “creationists”. And when they talk about Evolution, about Natural Selection, Mutation, like you said Katzpur, it was way over my head.

At that time, I didn’t know who Charles Darwin and how he was tied to Evolution.

I was completely clueless, and didn’t understand why there were two groups of people, arguing in favour of creation or evolution.

I did say much in these topics, because I didn’t know what they were really talking about.

So I took the times to read and learn some basic things about both competing concepts and to learn why they were arguing.

I already knew about Genesis creation, but never thought beyond it, didn’t try to interpret it with modern contexts, like sciences. What were the creationists’ purposes, their motives.

With Evolution it was a lot harder. I borrowed my cousin’s biology textbook, and read chapters on Evolution. Some things were beyond me, so I asked questions. And I picked up things here and there, a lot of them from other members.

I am no expert in biology, nor in evolutionary biology, but I learned enough to get by, like in places such as RF forums, where different people have different levels of understanding in sciences.

All I am saying it is never too late to learn some sciences. You don’t have to be expert to understand what are true, scientifically, and what are not.

And in the case, of Genesis creation, it is definitely not science.

 

[cladking]

You don’t have to be expert to understand what are true, scientifically, and what are not.

And in the case, of Genesis creation, it is definitely not science.

It's never too late to learn science but one is well advised to learn the nature of science before learning scientific opinion.

Most people can't tell the two apart. They also can't tell experimental results from the extrapolation of said results. Their models are rigid and based on opinion more than experiment in many cases. Just because an object falls at 32'/s/s doesn't mean everything in the universe does nor does it mean we know everything about why or how it falls. There is no science that precludes all religious beliefs about anything at all. Even if there were science is still limited by its metaphysics and would still apply only within this.

People merely believe in natural laws so they can ignore the possibility that something unknown set reality in motion. Nobody can show there is such a thing as natural law and this is just an opinion derived from the repeatability of well crafted experiment.

 

[oldbadger]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

Don't let them scenti.....sciun.... Sciend.... Lab folks fool ya. Yer moon is cheese and them landins was faked. Innit.

 

[cladking]

Don't let them scenti.....sciun.... Sciend.... Lab folks fool ya. Yer moon is cheese and them landins was faked. Innit.

And most of the people defending science from the heathens have no clue as to how or why science works. Now days our colleges churn out even scientists who don't understand why it works. If you don't understand metaphysics then you don't even know what you know and have no clue there could be something you don't know.[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

And most of the people defending science from the heathens have no clue as to how or why science works. Now days our colleges churn out even scientists who don't understand why it works. If you don't understand metaphysics then you don't even know what you know and have no clue there could be something you don't know.

Um no. Metaphysics is important, but it is far too often a phrase that is abused by deniers of science. One can understand how science works without dabbling in metaphysics. If a person does not understand the scientific method, then they clearly do not understand metaphysics. One needs to understand the base before one understands a concept that tries to explain how science works.

 

[cladking]

Um no. Metaphysics is important, but it is far too often a phrase that is abused by deniers of science. One can understand how science works without dabbling in metaphysics. If a person does not understand the scientific method, then they clearly do not understand metaphysics. One needs to understand the base before one understands a concept that tries to explain how science works.

How many times exactly have I defined "metaphysics" as the basis of science for you? It's at least a dozen and you've been in conversations where I defined it that many times for gnostic.

It is highly disingenuous to say, "One can understand how science works without dabbling in metaphysics. ".

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many times exactly have I defined "metaphysics" as the basis of science for you? It's at least a dozen and you've been in conversations where I defined it that many times for gnostic.

It is highly disingenuous to say, "One can understand how science works without dabbling in metaphysics. ".

Your failed definitions do not make it a fact.

 

[gnostic]

How many times exactly have I defined "metaphysics" as the basis of science for you? It's at least a dozen and you've been in conversations where I defined it that many times for gnostic.

For the sake of those people who never seen or read “your brand” of definition to Metaphysics in old threads, I would suggest that you define it here, for this thread.

This thread isn’t about you or me, because neither of us started this thread, and in any case, you are going off topic with Metaphysics.

You cannot expect others here like @Subduction Zone or @Evangelicalhumanist or @oldbadger to know of our past argument over Metaphysics.

For instance, does @Evangelicalhumanist or @oldbadger and others know about your Metaphysics or about our arguments? If not, then you need to define Metaphysics in this much newer thread, preferably in your own words, or find your old definition and “quote it” for this newer topic.

You might yourself this question:

WHY do I need define Metaphysics, again?​

Because you cannot expect other people to chase down old threads to find your definition. It is simple common courtesy (forum etiquette) to those people who have not read positions on Metaphysics, to define Metaphysics here.

 

[gnostic]

ps, @cladking

I don’t want another one-on-one argument over Metaphysics again.

We already dragged this out in your old Ancient Reality thread, where you kept moving the goalpost on me, so I am not going to jump down that rabbit hole again.

If you want to bring up Metaphysics with other members in this thread, leave me out of this.

 

[gnostic]

Um no. Metaphysics is important, but it is far too often a phrase that is abused by deniers of science.

For me, SZ, metaphysics is outdated and seriously overrated philosophy.

I don’t doubt Metaphysics contributions in the past, especially with Natural Philosophy, but other than a tiny element of Metaphysics, like Metaphysical Naturalism, the rest of Metaphysics, is overrated junk.

There is very little application for pure Metaphysics in this day and age, where Scientific Method is ignored.

The funny thing is that cladking talk of experiments is required, but he ignored the fact Metaphysicicians actually don’t think empirical evidence and experiments are needed.

So what cladking is saying about Metaphysics and experiments are oxymoron.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For me, SZ, metaphysics is outdated and seriously overrated philosophy.

I don’t doubt Metaphysics contributions in the past, especially with Natural Philosophy, but other than a tiny element of Metaphysics, like Metaphysical Naturalism, the rest of Metaphysics, is overrated junk.

There is very little application for pure Metaphysics in this day and age, where Scientific Method is ignored.

The funny thing is that cladking talk of experiments is required, but he ignored the fact Metaphysicicians actually don’t think empirical evidence and experiments are needed.

So what cladking is saying about Metaphysics and experiments are oxymoron.

It was part of the history of science, but it appears to be nothing like the "metaphysics" of @cladking . When people make up their own science and their own metaphysics it is too easy to refute them, though sadly they rarely understand the refutation.

 

[rational experiences]

O God.
Earth.
O one science product as science.

Consciousness bio life lives dies in the exact same state. Atmosphere. Heavens.

Said we survive only then die.
Said occult nuclear science made you die unnaturally.

Science.

Said machines metal.
Said earth core metal.

Said earth metal core releases radiation.

Copies God lies science.
A machine metal should not release its owned radiation fusion otherwise it forms a self mass hole.

For a machine body it meant over heating.

Yet the science warning was a hole.

Actually was a variation to gaining a space hole in mass.

 

[oldbadger]

And most of the people defending science from the heathens have no clue as to how or why science works. Now days our colleges churn out even scientists who don't understand why it works. If you don't understand metaphysics then you don't even know what you know and have no clue there could be something you don't know.

I was just having fun.....
And you're wrong...... because everybody has some science......... science is simply knowledge.
My science is different to yours because my experience s different to yours.

 

[cladking]

I was just having fun.....
And you're wrong...... because everybody has some science......... science is simply knowledge.
My science is different to yours because my experience s different to yours.

I tend to think of "knowledge" as that which is needed to perform tasks or to build and "science" as the means to generate knowledge but I don't really disagree with you.

 

[cladking]

This thread isn’t about you or me, because neither of us started this thread, and in any case, you are going off topic with Metaphysics.

The word is disingenuous. If you ever figure out how to use a dictionary and figure out what a word means look this one up first.

My definition of the word "metaphysics" appeared in the post he quoted but NEITHER of you can even see it!!! I have defined it thus and in great detail for BOTH OF YOU numerous times but you continue to use a different definition. Disingenuous.

Here is the quoted line that you apparently can't see or can't understand. See post #87. I'm sure this will be as ignored as post #87 and every other post.

"How many times exactly have I defined "metaphysics" as the basis of science for you?"

A "definition" is the meaning of a word. Frequently when I put a word in quotes a definition follows. There are many ways to parse a sentence but believers in science tend to parse everything said by heathens as nonsense. It would never occur to believers that any heathen could know far more science than they do and understand enough of how science works to know the limits of their knowledge. This is why there are threads like this one trying to show that heathens are ignorant and stupid. Meanwhile even your priests often don't understand the first thing about what science is nor can they tell the difference between their knowledge and their assumptions.

I'm sure no believer will parse any of this as it is intended. Not only are heathens stupid and ignorant but if they keep arguing they must also be off topic. It's the same MO used everywhere today. "We know everything and if you argue even after we've been condescending then we'll start using ad hominins and strategy.

I really didn't want to use the ignore list here but it might yet be necessary. When there are insults, threats, and no communication at all there is no point in trying to open a dialog with the faithful, most of whom apparently have the equivalent of about a 6th grade science education.

 

[gnostic]

My definition of the word "metaphysics" appeared in the post he quoted but NEITHER of you can even see it!!!

This, below...

"metaphysics" as the basis of science

...isn’t a definition for Metaphysics, cladking.

Because you could say “Scientific Method is the basis for science”, “Empiricism is the basis of science”, “Naturalism is the basis for science”, “Methodological Naturalism is the basis for science”, “Epistemology is the basis for science”, and so on, all of them are true...

All you have done is connect word “Metaphysics” to the word “science”, using yet another word “basis”, which I have done with my other examples in the above paragraph.

You cannot know what Metaphysics mean, unless you can explain to me HOW is Metaphysics is the “basis for science” and WHY? WHAT make Metaphysics better than Methodological Naturalism or the Scientific Method?

Can you answer these questions without trying to misdirect me with “disingenuous”?

You used this same useless motto back in your Ancient Reality thread, REPEATEDLY to avoid defining Metaphysics coherently as to how it is different from Empiricism, Epistemology, Methodological Naturalism, etc.

So really, cladking, you really haven’t define Metaphysics at all.

Metaphysics was word coined by Aristotle, but he claimed that it was 7th century BCE Thales that used metaphysical question to define reality.

Since then, Metaphysics transform and expand way beyond Aristotle’ original meaning, first changed by Roman philosophers, then by Christians, until it has been rendered useless by modern philosophers of the last couple of centuries.

Because Metaphysics have been transformed to mean different schools of thought, CAN YOU NOW DEFINE METAPHYSICS IN YOUR OWN WORDS AS TO WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU.

Don’t repeat that irrelevant motto to me again. Just define it. At least try.

 

[cladking]

Aristotle doesn't get to define any words at all. He spoke ancient Greek. You don't get to define it either.

This is the job of the individual who uses the word. You are playing semantical games. This is the absolute lowest form of argument but you won't understand this either.

I've posted this several times but you won't understand it either.

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf

The scientific method is not the basis of science. It is the axioms, definitions and premises that underlie science and the experimental results in an epistemological context that defines "science". The "scientific method" is primarily the means by which metaphysics is applied to the real world.

A lot of people who think they understand science actually can't tell an opinion from an experimental fact. Most of your knowledge is opinion and facts you've read in books. You hold most of your your knowledge as belief which is why you don't understand.

 

[cladking]

Don’t repeat that irrelevant motto to me again. Just define it.

It is all the definitions, axioms, and premises which underlie physics and to a very real degree, math as well. These latter are just logic applied to the way we have quantified reality but modern understanding of physics is mathematical so these should probably be included. To make "science" and "metaphysics" meaningful one must include all experimental results as well. Some (like Burtt) would include the history and order of experiment but I believe these are set in advance by the nature of the tools and axioms.

I understand that this definition is somewhat dated in the editorial opinion of dictionary publishers but no one has invented a word to replace it. It was certainly the first definition of the word when I was young.

 

[cladking]

I understand that this definition is somewhat dated in the editorial opinion of dictionary publishers but no one has invented a word to replace it. It was certainly the first definition of the word when I was young.

It's very ironic that the new definition is akin to magic and in a very real way science and especially technology is magic and ancient metaphysics was science. Modern people tend to be oblivious to the very concept of epistemology and metaphysics. They believe science works because we are so smart rather than that there is underlying metaphysics. Even scientists often lose sight of the difference between opinion and knowledge. In some fields this has run rampant and the entire field may be more opinion than fact.

 

[gnostic]

There you go again. More lame excuses.

You still won’t define Metaphysics. You are still trying to misdirect me with more excuses, so you avoid explaining what Metaphysics is.

Your excuses and your evasiveness are exactly why I got fed up with you at Ancient Reality thread.

“Metaphysics is the basis for science” isn’t a definition. It’s just word game, cladking, that have no relevant meaning to Metaphysics.

You are actually avoiding to place actual meaning to the word, speaks volume of your ignorance.

You can explain HOW Metaphysics is a “basis for science”, by explaining or defining WHAT Metaphysics is.

Can you that without making up more excuses, so that you can avoid defining a single word?