Page 29 of 30 FirstFirst ... 1927282930 LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 300

Thread: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

  1. #281
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I'm wondering...

    How did this thread go from discussing the constitutionality of Separation of Church and State to discussing the laws of gravity and the solar system?

    You guys must be extremely bored.

    Isn't everybody on teh internets bored?

  2. #282
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    I knew I shouldn't have thrown you another bone, but I did..

    You are not arguing with me about the fallibility of science anymore, now it's Netwon's hypothesis... distraction as usual. You wouldn't be so annoying if you were not so wrong and condescending "bunch of crap"... No, what I said wasn't a bunch of crap. Newton did have a hypothesis.
    Oh, it's all in good fun... I kinda like you!

    If your last post was in reference to fallibility, then I guess I didn't understand where you were going with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    The first part says what he had already explained, the second part says what he will not offer to explain.. therefore he offers no hypothesis on the cause of gravity. That is all your quote is showing.
    Yes, exactly. That was the point being made in reference to my earlier claim - laws describe and theories explain - I made this in reference to CT's post and the version of the scientific method you posted. Newton is providing a descriptive law based on observation. When he says, "I will frame no hypothesis" he is indeed referencing cause which is what is addressed in a scientific theory. His use of "hypothesis" in this context refers to a nascent theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    what I said wasn't a bunch of crap. Newton did have a hypothesis.
    ....
    Newton's hypothesis was that forces between heavenly bodies were the same type of force as terrestrial gravity.
    I wasn't arguing that Newton didn't hypothesize. I believe I said earlier in reference to CT's post that repeated testing of a hypothesis was actually something better associated with a law than a theory. The "crap" comment stemmed from trying to follow your chain of logic. You mention hypothesis, theory and law but didn't tie them all together. I assumed you were trying to link that somehow to the diagram.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    So gravity is both a law and theory like Critical Thinking already said. Scientific concepts are not strictly one thing or the other, which is why evolution is both theory and fact.
    I don't understand how you are arriving at this conclusion, but yes - we certainly can have a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. Or two competing theories. In the part of the principia I quoted, Newton is saying that he is presenting a law, not a theory. If I remember correctly, he was working on a theory but knew it had some issues. I'm not sure we've ever had a generally-accepted theory of gravity. It's one of the fundamental forces. Wikipedia says it's covered by the relativity, but I'm not sure, and am not a physicist.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    I am done with this debate now. Reading your statements actually causes my blood pressure to rise, because you are spouting off a "bunch of crap." You came into the debate foolishly trying to teach me something and acting superior in knowledge and understanding.
    Really? Really?

  3. #283
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:04 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,484
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    she's an idiot. most of us know that.
    Another bit of brilliant political analysis from an Obamatron.
    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.
    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 against Cap and Trade. Coon is for nationwide Cap 'N Tax.
    Mr. Coons also favors "a nationwide cap-and-trade program" so that government would regulate and tax our energy consumption and use.
    She's ready to repeal ObiKare. Coons believes in ObiKare.
    But he insisted it "was a critical piece of legislation" that should not be repealed.
    She's for securing the border. Coons is for legalizing illegals.
    Mr. Coons favors a "path towards legal residence" for those here illegally
    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.

    So... Who's Stupid?

    Delaware's Decision - WSJ.com

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 10-23-10 at 07:11 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  4. #284
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,324

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf
    Give an example of where science fails to be objective.. Do you have any example of science cramming a lie down our throats?
    Man caused Global warming.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #285
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    And while your brain continues to operate at a level just unconceivable to some, you still haven't the slightest of clues as to where evolution began. You conveniently ignore the single most important aspect of the discussion, and discount a higher being as impossible. Evolution to some degree is obvious, but the levels you want to take it to are still vastly unproven and not understood at all. Anybody's guess.
    I don't know where you're getting the idea that I discount the possibility of a higher being, because I emphatically do not. I just don't see any empirical evidence that He somehow intelligently guided the evolution of life in a way that chance could not do equally well.

    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 12:04 PM.

  6. #286
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Isn't everybody on the internets bored?
    I suppose you do have a point there.

  7. #287
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    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:

    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.
    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.

    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 05:05 PM.

  8. #288
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Fallibility
    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    I found that to be very infuriating.. especially statements like this:
    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.
    It wasn't meant to be infuriating - (and I'm not trying to be infuriating now), but it's a true statement. You keep providing examples for why science is considered fallible, but cannot seem to label it as such. Here are definitions of fallible:

    • 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:
    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    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.
    Science is fallible. To say it is fallible does not discredit the field. It merely recognizes limitations. I made no claims as to likihood or probability, only that it is capable of erring.

    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 04:32 AM.

  9. #289
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    You keep providing examples for why science is considered fallible, but cannot seem to label it as such.
    Meant to say "You keep providing examples that could be used to illustrate why science is considered fallible.." but it won't let me change.

  10. #290
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,752

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Soooooo....

    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.

    See difference?

    I love teh internetz, such boredom it relieves while doing nothing here at work.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Page 29 of 30 FirstFirst ... 1927282930 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •