If your last post was in reference to fallibility, then I guess I didn't understand where you were going with it.
Many also knew back in 2008 that Obama was a brilliant man... because the Journolists told them so... ROTFLOL
Let's do a short scorecard:
Shes for lower taxes. Coons wants to raise taxes.
She's against Cap and Trade. Coon is for nationwide Cap 'N Tax.When Mr. Blitzer asked Mr. Coons, "Did you increase taxes as the county executive?" Mr. Coons ducked the question. But he did in fact increase property taxes in New Castle County, by 48%.
She's ready to repeal ObiKare. Coons believes in ObiKare.Mr. Coons also favors "a nationwide cap-and-trade program" so that government would regulate and tax our energy consumption and use.
She's for securing the border. Coons is for legalizing illegals.But he insisted it "was a critical piece of legislation" that should not be repealed.
Coons is a tax and spend Marxist... he's another Kenyan & Marxist influenced piece of political mess. Seems like Delaware might step in it again... after all, they have a long record of such feats, sending us the Great Joe Biden... one of the Senate's great idiots.Mr. Coons favors a "path towards legal residence" for those here illegally
So... Who's Stupid?
Delaware's Decision - WSJ.com
Last edited by zimmer; 10-23-10 at 05:11 AM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
Man caused Global warming.Originally Posted by SheWolf
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
You're wrong about evolution not being proven. The theory of evolution has been borne by observation as well as the theory of gravity has. And so far there is no sign that ID is in any way necessary to make evolution work as a theory. So until we find some extraordinary evidence, Occam's razor will prevail.
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 10-23-10 at 10:04 AM.
The reason I found your statements to be so infuriating is because you are using academic terms like logic, and subjective and objective and applying them inappropriately.
For example: science is subject
To say science is subjective is a generalization of science. Science has objective and subjective areas, but to say science as a whole is subjective is intellectually dishonest.. that is, if you even intellectually understand those concepts (ie understand those terms beyond a layperson's comprehension, and don't think subjectivity is ground for dismissal). You had the tone of somebody trying to dismiss science IMHO..
Why should we call something that has both elements of objectivity and subjectivity as subjective, and then by default fallible? I don't think I ever said science was infallible, and even if I did I would have caught up in the commenting, and would have been wrong. My point is, that diagnosing science as completely fallible or infallible is subjective, and saying that science is completely subjective is inaccurate.
I found that to be very infuriating.. especially statements like this:
Diagnosing science as being fallible at any angle and for any reason is a subjective critique. I would never say science is fallible. Why would I want to discredit a field of study that I respect? The method is designed to prevent a theory or idea in the scientific community (no matter how widely held or respected) as either being taught as true or false if it can't be proven either way, which is why things like Plate Tectonics are theories.. even though it makes sense, and it seems so logical that lay people and high schoolers easy confuse it as fact. Until it's proven as being true, it's a theory, same as the Big Bang Theory. And more than likely they are both going to remain theories, because I don't see any way of proving either of them. So on those grounds, I don't think science if fallible.Once again, at some level you seem to understand that science is fallible, you're just unwilling to label it a such. I think because you either don't understand what "fallible" means or don't understand what "science" is.
So when you are telling me that "science is subjective" you sound as intelligent to me as somebody who says "psychology is subjective," which isn't very intelligent. Psychology has theories, and psychologists make subjective judgments like the rest of scientists.. but I wouldn't say as a whole the practice of psychology is subjective or fallible. That is disingenuous and frankly ignorant.
The only people who would generalize psychology as subjective and fallible are Scientologist and a few others, because they don't believe in taking drugs for mental health reasons.. they don't agree that PTSD is really a diagnosis or should be a diagnosis. As I understand it, Scientologist view PSTD and postpartum depression as subjectively described aliments and diseases, that need to be treated and "cured" by a practice that is flawed and dismal. They have their own reasons to explain those things away, and their own cures.. which really are not cures, but removing what they believe to be the real culprit.
And when you said the solar system was subjective. That really ticked me off too. Combined with your comment about philosophers rolling over in their graves for me saying "logic is the foundation of science" or something like that. I knew you wouldn't be able to name philosophers, because it's my view you would find them.
The fact is philosophers like Hegel, would more in fact be rolling over in the graves about your comment. His philosophical meaning of being, the perpetual existence of the present and the human spirit (zeitgeist and weltzeist) to progress and become.. coincides with the theory of science IMO. His logic of being and existence is in disagreement with a statement such as "the solar system is subjective."
The solar system exists, it's in the state of being.. therefor it isn't subjective. You are not subjective, you exist. It sort of goes along with the famous statement "I think, therefore I am." Hegel's perception is that existence is not subjective. Being = objective. Existence = objective
So there was a long list of exchanges that honestly made me think you were in over you head with this discussion, and not able to appropriately use big words. That might sound rough, but this 100% honesty.
Now if you think I am some god hating future scientist who thinks Darwin's theory is going to be proven as truth someday, and therefore I am your enemy; you would have me wrong. I don't really care enough about his theory to study it for myself.. so I don't know the specifications. It wasn't spoon fed to me in college or anywhere else. I have no personal opinion on his theory, nor do I care to form one. His theory doesn't impact the way I think about the world or my faith.
I am done with this conversation. I am not willing to debate or throw anymore bones. I just wanted to make my final statement on why I was getting so personally angry and impatient. I was letting things slide through for believing you were honestly incapable of comprehending..
Last edited by SheWolf; 10-23-10 at 03:05 PM.
- Capable of making mistakes or being wrong - wiktionary
- Capable of making a mistake - merriam-webster
- Capable of being mistaken - freedictionry
- Liable to make a mistake - dictionary.com
- Capable of making an error - yourdictionary.com
Something is either fallible or it is infallible. Either capable of making mistakes or incapable of making mistakes.
Is science capable of making mistakes? Yes. Science has made a lot of mistakes. It doesn't mean science is worthless or always makes mistakes. It means it can make mistakes. Science is not perfect.
Now to address your related points:
And yes, it has a self correcting mechanism; it's one of its strengths and something that is only necessary because science is fallible.
As to the last part... there is nothing science produces that is not "capable of being wrong" - i.e. fallible. When you say "proven" - i'm assuming you're talking about a scientific fact. Even an objective, scientific fact can be fallible and shown to be incorrect or incomplete. Alhough unlikely, it is possible for something to qualify as a fact in every possible way known to man - only to be shown incorrect or incomplete in light of new knowledge or new technology.
In sum, even the best science is fallible - even in an imagined situation of flawless execution and complete objectivity - science will always be capable of making an error. You never know when something may come and turn everything on its head.
That ends my discussion of fallibility!! Will have to address the rest of the post later, need to get some sleep!
Last edited by Taylor; 10-24-10 at 02:32 AM.
Separation of Church and State.
Not in the constitution, specifically, but interpreted (or something like that) by a SCOTUS ruling at some point or another (late 1800's?)
Related to 1st amendment statement (in part) of "congress shall make no law..."
IMO, total separation of religion and state impossible, obviously, due to inability to regulate/control human thought. Would prefer no one ever try.
IMO, separation of CHURCH and state desired, obviously.
I love teh internetz, such boredom it relieves while doing nothing here at work.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller