I was accosted by a couple of Born-again Christians while fishing

[dfnj]

Having a conversation with you that you choose to carry on, isn't being "accosted". Stop being dramatic. You could've walked away if it bothered you that much.

I could not walk away. I was trapped at at the end of the peninsula with all my fishing poles in the water. I tried to not participate but they sucked me in. Plus was fishing for 5 hours. My defenses were down.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's just wrong.
For example, the General Theory Of Relativity has
been confirmed in many experiments.
Don't confuse confirmation with proof. Theories
about the natural world are never proven true.
Instead, they're found useful.

Well, we agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, we agree.

Praise Cthulhu!

 

[PureX]

Not reliable? Something that has
always worked, without exception is not
reliable?

WHOEVER came up with that is ery confused.

Where did you see any mention of reliability in my post?

 

[PureX]

Germs haven't been confirmed to cause disease?

Germs are an observed phenomenon, not a theory about observed phenomena.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Germs are an observed phenomenon, not a theory about observed phenomena.

That is wrong.

Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[PureX]

That is wrong.

Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's a theory about how germs and disease are physically related. The germs themselves are an observed phenomenon. The diseases are likewise an observed phenomena. How they are physically inter-related is the theory.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's a theory about how germs and disease are physically related. The germs themselves are an observed phenomenon. The diseases are likewise an observed phenomena. How they are physically inter-related is the theory.

Amd as it stands you are incorrect as germs are a theory. So is the combustibility of oxygen.

 

[PureX]

A scientific theory is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt when its predictions are demonstrated to be correct.

No scientific theory is ever confirmed beyong any doubt by any actual scientists. Embracing doubt is the conceptual foundation of the scietific process. You are refering to 'scientism', which is the false belief that the scientific process pursues and result in the acquisition of truth. Which is NOT any part of the actual practice of science.

The theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt, as are the heliocentric theory and the germ theory of disease

This is false in terms of the actual science. It is simply a common belief held by the 'scientism' crowd/cult.

None will ever be overturned.

You are a true believe in the 'scientism' cult. But no actual scientist would adopt that position or make that claim.

That's all any idea is good for.

What, supporting your unquestioned belief?

Gravity is an abstraction that describes the fact that massive bodies attract one another.

No, gravity is an observed physical phenomenon. The rest is a theory about what it is and how it functions.

Scientific theories of gravity include mathematics which make specific and accurate predictions, and are reliable on the scales in which they are known to produce accurate predictions.

And as long as the theory continues to produce the predicted results when it's put to the test, the theory will remain viable. But it will never be confirmed beyond doubt. Not by any scientific means, anyway.

Accurate and useful theories are not indubitable truth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No scientific theory is ever confirmed beyong any doubt by any actual scientists.

Yes, I know, but they can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard for inductions.

Accurate and useful theories are not indubitable truth.

I don't know what indubitable truth means to you, but what I am looking for are correct ideas, that is, ideas that accurately predict outcomes. Why do you keep coming back to this topic? Will we never get past it? I have no interest in talking about indubitable truth, as it is both unavailable and irrelevant in daily life.

You are refering to 'scientism', which is the false belief that the scientific process pursues and result in the acquisition of truth.

I've never seen that definition for scientism, but yes, empiricism is the only path to correct statements about what comprises reality and how reality works.

This is false in terms of the actual science.

I had written, "The theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt, as are the heliocentric theory and the germ theory of disease." If the statement is false, you can falsify it. If you can't - and you know nobody can - it's either because the statement is unfalsifiable (which it is not) or because it is correct.

You are a true believe in the 'scientism' cult. But no actual scientist would adopt that position or make that claim.

I had written, "None [of the three named scientific theories] will ever be overturned." Most scientists and critical thinkers familiar with science would agree with me. They are all confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. They are correct. They constitute knowledge.

No, gravity is an observed physical phenomenon.

I had written, "Gravity is an abstraction that describes the fact that massive bodies attract one another." Gravity is not observable. Only its effect is. Movement of visible massive bodies is.

What's your point? Do you have one, or are just disagreeing to disagree? No answer expected, though one is deserved if you think you have a point and are making a useful distinction. I don't think you do, and I don't think you think you do, either. That's fine, but let's not pretend otherwise if that's the case.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, gravity is an observed physical phenomenon. The rest is a theory about what it is and how it functions.

Have you ever observed the gravitational pull of one object over another? I know I haven't. I see the effects of it daily, but without those who studied gravity and the cosmos in depth, including Newton and Einstein, I really wouldn't have anything to know that what makes us fall down is the same thing keeping the planets aligned and revolving around the sun, which is the same force that keeps the entire universe going as it does. Makes sense it is, but I've just not studied those things enough to reach that conclusion on my own.

 

[PureX]

Have you ever observed the gravitational pull of one object over another? I know I haven't. I see the effects of it daily, but without those who studied gravity and the cosmos in depth, including Newton and Einstein, I really wouldn't have anything to know that what makes us fall down is the same thing keeping the planets aligned and revolving around the sun, which is the same force that keeps the entire universe going as it does. Makes sense it is, but I've just not studied those things enough to reach that conclusion on my own.

You're still not differentiating between the observed phenomenon and the theory about what it is and how it works. And you're still not understanding that science isn't in the business of proving a theory. In science, the theory always remains a theory. Because skepticism is essential to the process.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I know, but they can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard for inductions.

Only in YOUR OWN MIND, and the minds of your fellow scietism cult members.

The rest of us understand that a scientific theory remains a theory and is not to be presumed a "confirmed truth". And that presuming it to be a confirmed truth runs exactly contrary to the essence of the scientific process.

I don't know what indubitable truth means to you, but what I am looking for are correct ideas, that is, ideas that accurately predict outcomes.

Accurately predicting outcomes does not make a theory true. That's exactly the kind of thinking that real scientists try to avoid. They are not in the business of seeking truth, and they are certainly not in the business of presuming that they've found it. That's 'scientism' that's doing that, not science.

Why do you keep coming back to this topic? Will we never get past it? I have no interest in talking about indubitable truth, as it is both unavailable and irrelevant in daily life.

Then stop pretending that science is delivering it to you. And that the rest of us should all just accept it as such. That a theory functions under limited conditions is no more or less validating in science than the fact that faith in God functions under limited conditions for theists. Stop pretending that you have the truly true truth machine while the theists are all just stumbling around in blind ignorance and superstition.

I've never seen that definition for scientism, but yes, empiricism is the only path to correct statements about what comprises reality and how reality works.

You've never seen ANY definition of scientism that you'd accept because you don't believe it exists. And you are a true believer in your own beliefs. As all true believers are. So therefor it doesn't exist in your world view.

I had written, "The theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt, as are the heliocentric theory and the germ theory of disease." If the statement is false, you can falsify it. If you can't - and you know nobody can - it's either because the statement is unfalsifiable (which it is not) or because it is correct.

The problem is your presumption of "correctness" is vague and incomplete. The theory of evolution functions predictably in many of the situations to which we apply it. But not all. And when it doesn't function predictably, we have to investigate, and eventually alter the theory or accept it's shortfalls. This doesn't warrant calling it "correct". Nor does it warrant presuming that it's true beyond a reasonable doubt because in science there is no such threshold. Which is why the scientists that developed and use the theory do not consider it as such.

I had written, "None [of the three named scientific theories] will ever be overturned." Most scientists and critical thinkers familiar with science would agree with me.

Any scientist or "critical thinker" that thinks he can predict the future in a universe that is still such an enormous mystery to us is a fool. To the 'scientism' cult, however, this kind of blind faith in the power of science is commonplace. It's what it's all about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're still not differentiating between the observed phenomenon and the theory about what it is and how it works. And you're still not understanding that science isn't in the business of proving a theory. In science, the theory always remains a theory. Because skepticism is essential to the process.

That doesn't make much sense. A theory is the explanation of an observed phenomena amd there's no reason to make such a differentiation as you're trying to.
And they're theories not because of scepticism but because there's nowhere else to promote them to. Like Germ Theory. It tells us that microorganisms--rather than things like bad airs or tainted humors--cause disease. This has been found to be so utterly true to the point it's how we learned stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria rather than stress. And it's just not going anywhere. There is no serious doubts or scepticism towards it and it's safe to say it just won't be facing any competitors to dethrone it.

 

[PureX]

That doesn't make much sense. A theory is the explanation of an observed phenomena amd there's no reason to make such a differentiation as you're trying to.
And they're theories not because of scepticism but because there's nowhere else to promote them to. Like Germ Theory. It tells us that microorganisms--rather than things like bad airs or tainted humors--cause disease. This has been found to be so utterly true to the point it's how we learned stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria rather than stress. And it's just not going anywhere. There is no serious doubts or scepticism towards it and it's safe to say it just won't be facing any competitors to dethrone it.

A theory in science is only a possible explanation of observed phenomena. It is never 'the' explanation because the scientific process requires an open/unbiased approach. This is why scientism is so antithetical to actual science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I know, but they can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard for inductions.

I don't know what indubitable truth means to you, but what I am looking for are correct ideas, that is, ideas that accurately predict outcomes. Why do you keep coming back to this topic? Will we never get past it? I have no interest in talking about indubitable truth, as it is both unavailable and irrelevant in daily life.

I've never seen that definition for scientism, but yes, empiricism is the only path to correct statements about what comprises reality and how reality works.

I had written, "The theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt, as are the heliocentric theory and the germ theory of disease." If the statement is false, you can falsify it. If you can't - and you know nobody can - it's either because the statement is unfalsifiable (which it is not) or because it is correct.

I had written, "None [of the three named scientific theories] will ever be overturned." Most scientists and critical thinkers familiar with science would agree with me. They are all confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. They are correct. They constitute knowledge.

I had written, "Gravity is an abstraction that describes the fact that massive bodies attract one another." Gravity is not observable. Only its effect is. Movement of visible massive bodies is.

What's your point? Do you have one, or are just disagreeing to disagree? No answer expected, though one is deserved if you think you have a point and are making a useful distinction. I don't think you do, and I don't think you think you do, either. That's fine, but let's not pretend otherwise if that's the case.

Is there such a thing as scientismism? A position that sees scientism everywhere. Like an addiction that has to be fed while the addicted claim they can stop at any time or they are so addicted that they don't even see the addiction?

 

[mindlight]

I'm at the lake minding my own business. Fishing in New Jersey requires high levels of patience. I'm 5 hours into fishing and I haven't caught a single fish. I had a few nibbles but no fish so I wasn't in the best of moods. Where I fish it's a small peninsula and I'm fishing at the tip. So a guy and a girl walk up to me and start talking. I'm being friendly and all but I'm kind of trapped at the end of the peninsula with all my fishing gear in the water. And then the guy, who said his name was "Happy", started talking about the bible and the story of Jonah and the whale. The guy asks me what do I think about the story being a fisherman and all. And I'm thinking, "oh boy, here we go." I said, "it's a story about falling down into the depths of despair and through transformation we return back to the real world as a stronger person." The guy chuckled a bit. And then started talking about had I ever thought about where life comes from. And I said, "forget about evolution, abiogenesis is the real interesting topic." The guy then showed me a leaf from a nearby bush and said to me, "life coming into existences is just too improbable to happen by just luck."

He went on to say, "no one has ever created life in a laboratory." And I said, "nonsense, with abiogenesis, given enough time it's like lottery math. If you buy enough tickets, no matter how improbable the event may be, eventually you are going to win. The reason life has never been created in a laboratory is because it has not been attempted enough times." He then said, "life is too complicated to be created." And I said, "nonsense, life is like a ball rolling down a hill. At the top of the hill you have the greatest potential for movement. At the bottom of the hill all the energy is expended. With life, the ball and the hill form a feedback loop where the ball never stops rolling down the hill." We argued a bit and then he then he said, "evolution is just a theory," at which point I was beginning to lose my patience. So I said, "have you ever studied evolution. Take fish for example. Fish have two pectoral fins which are like arms. Fish have two pelvic fins which are like legs. Fish have two eyes, two nostrils, one mouth, a spine, and a poop hole. There's no way this is just coincidence. We came from fish."

He then said, "look at your shoe. If you came across your shoe you would know it was created by intelligence." I chimed in, "I know where you are going and I will say right off the bat there's nothing intelligent about the design of my body. And I pointed out the huge scar I have where I had my left knee replaced. I then said, "if our body's were truly intelligently designed then people's arms and fingers would grow back after they were cut off. That's how I would have designed our bodies."

He did not like what I was saying and changed the subject. He then started talking about if I knew what was going to happen to me when I die. I said, "I'm never going to die. I will live on in my children and the people around me. As long as the human race continues to be alive, everything that is me will live on. " He look at me like I was crazy. I then said, "Take sex for example. None of us invented sex. It's just part of what it means to be a human being. The same is true with every other aspect of our human character. Everything that we think is unique about us exists in other people. It's just ego delusion to think we are unique. So everything I cherish most will continue to live on in other people."

He then said, "but what about you when you die." And I said, "my brain will stop working and my body will decay. But everything I hold dear will continue to exist in the people around me." Again, he frowned a bit and changed the subject. He then asked me had I ever done anything evil. I said, "of course I have. Too many times." I then told him that I joke with my wife that when I die she should have me cremated and pour my ashes into the lake because I have killed so many baitfish in my life. And this way, the baitfish can feed on my ashes. He smiled a bit and then said "it's not good to be evil and you will be judged." And I said, "What is evil is a bit of a tricky subject because it's only evil if you hurt someone else's vitality or enthusiasm. And many times, no matter what you do you end up hurting someone because you are forced to choose the lesser of two evils." He then started saying evil is absolute like killing someone. I then said, "nonsense, when soldiers kill many times it's not considered evil. Or self-defense." We argued a bit about evil. I said, "What is evil changes over time. Take slavery in the bible. The bible is written as if slavery is morally okay. But today it isn't." He didn't like my reasoning. I continued, "evil is like words and language in society. The meaning of words change over time. But with society on a whole words have certain accepted meanings. The same is true with evil."

He then started saying, "what about what happens to you when you die. You should be afraid of what is going to happen to you." I said, "I'm not afraid because every aspect of who I am is going to live on in other people. My sense of humor. What I value most. What I love. What I appreciate." He was not impressed with my argument. And at this exact moment, after 5 hours, I get a bite on one of my poles. I catch a small green perch. He said, "see, God has helped you." I said, "nonsense, if God were helping me it would not have taken me 5 hours to catch just one fish." The girl with the guy didn't say much but smiled every time we made eye contact. I really wanted to keep the green perch and use it for bait. Normally, I would have just cut the head right off. But I figured I'd show my two new friends what a nice person I was by throwing the baitfish back into the lake. But I really wanted to keep the baitfish and cut its head off. I never at any point claimed I was a good person. The way I see it, fish eat other fish all the time. I'm just doing God's work when I'm fishing. Cutting up baitfish is all part of God's master plan.

Maybe you did not signal very well. Evangelists following Jesus's script and receiving a rejection should have handed you over to the judgment of the Lord, wiped the mud of their feet and moved on to the next person.

Regarding abiogenesis there is zero scientific proof and the arguments relating to a naturalistic emergence of life are speculative not fact based-

There

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Germs are an observed phenomenon, not a theory about observed phenomena.

I think this is where you diversion started by moving the goal posts and creating a straw man.

The post wasn't asking for confirmation that germs are an observed phenomenon or claiming they are not. It was about germ theory. Your answer in response is to something that wasn't stated and is not implied in what was stated.

This diversion seems to have worked for you in part, but I suppose that is why you employed it in the first place.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Only in YOUR OWN MIND, and the minds of your fellow scietism cult members.

The rest of us understand that a scientific theory remains a theory and is not to be presumed a "confirmed truth". And that presuming it to be a confirmed truth runs exactly contrary to the essence of the scientific process.

Accurately predicting outcomes does not make a theory true. That's exactly the kind of thinking that real scientists try to avoid. They are not in the business of seeking truth, and they are certainly not in the business of presuming that they've found it. That's 'scientism' that's doing that, not science.

Then stop pretending that science is delivering it to you. And that the rest of us should all just accept it as such. That a theory functions under limited conditions is no more or less validating in science than the fact that faith in God functions under limited conditions for theists. Stop pretending that you have the truly true truth machine while the theists are all just stumbling around in blind ignorance and superstition.

You've never seen ANY definition of scientism that you'd accept because you don't believe it exists. And you are a true believer in your own beliefs. As all true believers are. So therefor it doesn't exist in your world view.

The problem is your presumption of "correctness" is vague and incomplete. The theory of evolution functions predictably in many of the situations to which we apply it. But not all. And when it doesn't function predictably, we have to investigate, and eventually alter the theory or accept it's shortfalls. This doesn't warrant calling it "correct". Nor does it warrant presuming that it's true beyond a reasonable doubt because in science there is no such threshold. Which is why the scientists that developed and use the theory do not consider it as such.

Any scientist or "critical thinker" that thinks he can predict the future in a universe that is still such an enormous mystery to us is a fool. To the 'scientism' cult, however, this kind of blind faith in the power of science is commonplace. It's what it's all about.

Do you see scientism everywhere? Are you aware that you do? Is this just so much a part of you that you don't even know it is there?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You're still not differentiating between the observed phenomenon and the theory about what it is and how it works.

Not relevant to this discussion. You claimed that gravity could be observed and were corrected - only its effect on massive bodies can be observed. Also, this is the mistake YOU made failing to differentiate between germs, which unlike gravity are observable, and the germ theory of infectious disease.

The rest of us understand that a scientific theory remains a theory and is not to be presumed a "confirmed truth".

"Confirmed truth" is your language, yet you put it in quotes anyway as if they were my words. I avoid the word truth in these discussions for this reason. Fideists commonly accept it as an invitation to comment that since we can never know absolute or objective truth, we know nothing, or that other ways of "knowing" than empiricism are equally valid.

Accurately predicting outcomes does not make a theory true.

It makes it correct in the range and scale in which it does that. We have no other expectation for any idea about how reality works than that it do that. Shall we abandon the laws of physics because they don't apply before the universe was a certain age and size? No. Shall we call them untrue for that reason? I find that kind of thinking to be a dead end, which is its point - to muddy these waters.

And it makes the idea an outperformer of any unfalsifiable claim believed by faith, which can never do that. And that's really what this is all about. You want the latter given the same respect as the former, and you do it by attempting to erode away at the achievement of empiricism. It's exactly analogous to the creationist who can't defend the unfalsifiable claims of creationism, and so tries instead to undermine the accomplishments of empirical science.

Stop pretending that you have the truly true truth machine while the theists are all just stumbling around in blind ignorance and superstition.

Stop pretending that you have knowledge derived by any other method than empiricism.

You've never seen ANY definition of scientism that you'd accept because you don't believe it exists.

I know what you mean by the word. Although you state that your objection is to an over-reliance on empiricism as a path to truth, what you mean is that not enough respect is given by empiricists to other ways of knowing. One can't rely on the confirmed output of empiricism too much. One can only rely on its competitor - faith - too much

The problem is your presumption of "correctness" is vague and incomplete.

Not to me. If an idea works, it is correct. However, your definition of truth is vague, which is why you like to keep coming back to that word.

Is there such a thing as scientismism? A position that sees scientism everywhere.

I haven't seen the word used before, but yes, that's what we're seeing here. I think I've just described what motivates the claim that one can rely too much on empiricism, a claim for which no examples are ever produced. It's a complaint that faith isn't being relied on enough by those who reject it as a path to knowledge.