[BaalChatzaf]

Quote

Words fail me.

Quote

This is not one of those fake church signs: it's the real thing, taken in Arkansas.

[url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03

This post has been edited by BaalChatzaf: 29 March 2009 - 08:45 AM

[BaalChatzaf]

BaalChatzaf, on Mar 29 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

Quote

Words fail me.

Quote

This is not one of those fake church signs: it's the real thing, taken in Arkansas.

[url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03

Wrongplanet.net is the meeting house for the Asperger Syndrome folk. Their site is very busy. I have never seen fewer than 200 logged on at once and most often over 500 (with slow response of course)

Ba'al Chatzaf

This post has been edited by BaalChatzaf: 29 March 2009 - 08:45 AM

[Chris Grieb]

The sign is of course correct. This point needs to be made to those who want to combine faith and reason. You can't do it.

[Dragonfly]

Well, that Baptist Church is certainly insightful.

[BaalChatzaf]

Dragonfly, on Mar 29 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

Well, that Baptist Church is certainly insightful.

And the converse is equally true. Faith in the unseen, nonevident and merely hoped for is the enemy of reason.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[general semanticist]

There is a certain amount of faith in science as well - in the form of assumptions.

[BaalChatzaf]

general semanticist, on Mar 29 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

There is a certain amount of faith in science as well - in the form of assumptions.

Yes, but the difference is that such assumptions (we call the hypotheses) lead to predictions which are empirically testable and in principle falsifiable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

BaalChatzaf, on Mar 29 2009, 09:40 PM, said:

general semanticist, on Mar 29 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

There is a certain amount of faith in science as well - in the form of assumptions.

Yes, but the difference is that such assumptions (we call the hypotheses) lead to predictions which are empirically testable and in principle falsifiable.

And the difference with faith is that assumptions may always be rejected if they do not work. That some assumptions have stood the time is not a question of faith but of the fact that they do deliver the goods.

[general semanticist]

I realize there is a difference but it bothers me sometimes when people act as though science is certainty. This makes scientific people look as dogmatic as religious people. Faith in something is unavoidable and there is some reason in religion too, as usual, it is another false dichotomy. I like what Korzybski said, religion is a kind of primitive science and science is a kind of modern religion.

[BaalChatzaf]

general semanticist, on Mar 29 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

I realize there is a difference but it bothers me sometimes when people act as though science is certainty. This makes scientific people look as dogmatic as religious people. Faith in something is unavoidable and there is some reason in religion too, as usual, it is another false dichotomy. I like what Korzybski said, religion is a kind of primitive science and science is a kind of modern religion.

Science is a certain as our observations, which are not absolutely certain.

Ba'al Chatzaf