Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[JonathanL]

I don't fully understand QM either Sparko, neither do you, but I do know that it works. Do you trust that QM works? People believe in science because it works, whether they fully understand it or not. Being that you asked the question, I take it that you don't trust in science? I guess then that it is you who believes in whatever you are told.

Wow.

[Sparko]

I don't fully understand QM either Sparko, neither do you, but I do know that it works. Do you trust that QM works? People believe in science because it works, whether they fully understand it or not. Being that you asked the question, I take it that you don't trust in science? I guess then that it is you who believes in whatever you are told.

You don't "fully understand" quantum mechanics, Jim? JimL You don't understand ANY QM. You don't understand any General or Special Relativity. Your science understanding is about the 8th grade level at best. So what you are really doing is having faith that it works, you don't know why it works, how it works, and you have absolutely no way of checking it out. You just take the word of scientists that it works. Scientists are the priests of your religion. They tell you "AGW is a settled science" and you believe them, for instance. Now I believe a great deal of science works too, and is true. But at least I have a basic understanding of the science, can understand the concepts and check the results. But I don't just take science on faith. I know science can easily do a 180 and in 10 years they could tell us that QM was a good approximation but now we know that it was as lacking as Newton's laws of motion were compared to Relativity. Science used to scoff at plate tectonics but today it is the dominant theory. Scientists are human and subject to emotion and seeing what they want to see as anyone is.

So whether it comes to religion or science, it actually boils down to faith. Some people like you, merely have faith because they are too ignorant to know whether to believe or not, so they just choose to either believe in it or not for no reason. Other people have a reasonable faith, based on evidence and checking out that evidence behind the claims, whether we are talking about science or religion.

So when you mock religion and faith, we all know that you are too ignorant to even grasp where our faith comes from or why we believe. Because you only have faith based on smoke and mirrors and don't have enough knowledge to even check out the facts of what you claim to believe in.

It's really sad. You are a caveman throwing rocks at an astronaut claiming that he can never reach the moon because it is made of cheese.

[Apologiaphoenix]

anyScientific methodology can supply such substantiated evidence and discover new knowledge, whereas philosophy cannot. It is dependent upon existing knowledge.

But this cannot be because Jim has said earlier

You can embrace whatever it is you believe, your belief is why you embrace it, but whether those beliefs are truths or not you have no knowledge of without science.

Now if you want to say the meaning of words is determined by common agreement, well you need to show that that claim is established by science. if it is not, then I can reject it. If it is, then that means I can reject Jim's scientism. It also means any form of scientism like Jim's must be rejected. Which is it?

his satisfaction. And no doubt people like you will agree with him given your religious beliefs.

Or could it be that there actually is data. I could just as well say "No doubt, people who do not believe in miracles will not believe because it disagrees with their anti-religious beliefs."

Also, Keener rejects a natural/supernatural dichotomy as well. You'd know this if you'd read him, but you must also possess this keen ability to know the data of a book without having read it. Simply incredible! Wish I had that! It would save me so much work!

But by investigating miracles occurring in the natural world, he is making a scientific claim and, as such, it requires testing by scientific methodology. To my knowledge all he has provided is anecdotal evidence. But science consists of

No. He's making a historical claim about something that has happened in the natural world and it is to be verified by the standards of history which can be informed by sciences. Would you prefer we go to someone who was blind and blind them again and again?

Word games!

And WHOOSH! goes the point right over Tassy's head.

evidence of effective scientific methodology. But, whereas science demonstrably advances the body of knowledge and allows for prediction to enable further new knowledge, philosophy is unable to do so. It must rely on existing knowledge upon which to form a premise.

[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, none of this is scientific. Instead, it's a philosophical statement about the nature of science that says science does not advance our knowledge all the while trying to advance our knowledge by saying it does not advance our knowledge.

Go deep enough in science and you inevitably get to philosophy. Your statement is the other way around. Science is built on philosophy. Philosophy is not built on science.

[Apologiaphoenix]

But you don't "believe" that a word has a certain meaning, you "know" that a word has a certain meaning, because we gave it that meaning. Will you continue to act the fool?

The claim that we can give a word a meaning has not been established by science. By your standard, I cannot know that that is true.

Someone here is sure doing the role of the fool, and it's not an act, and it's not me.

Since language is our own creation, we don't need science to explain it to us AP. I can't believe I have to explain this to you!

I'm just holding you to your own standard.

"You can embrace whatever it is you believe, your belief is why you embrace it, but whether those beliefs are truths or not you have no knowledge of without science."

The statement that since it is our own creation then we don't need science to explain it to us not only contradicts the above statement, but is itself not established by science. You have no knowledge of if your claim is true or not without science and you've given no scientific reason to think it is true.

I am happy to read things that challenge me, thats why i'm discussing this with you. So, go ahead and challenge me with what you've learned instead of telling me to go read a book. If you are unable to do this on your own, in your own words, then i'll have to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about and there is no point in discussing it with you.

No you don't. It just means you do some real leg work. When you read something that challenges you, it's more than just someone online. It's a book by a credentialed scholar. Go ahead and assume. It won't keep me up at night. I'll just assume you're someone too scared to read a scholarly book that disagrees with you.

If you want to know if I read scholarly books that disagree with me, you need only look at my reviews of them to find that I do read them and interact with them.

If you can't read a book that disagrees with you, well enjoy living in your safety bubble. It'd be horrible if you got challenged by primary sources after all!

Thats not what I asked. I asked you to define what it is that you mean by a mind.

By a mind, I mean a center of consciousness.

[Tassman]

But this cannot be because Jim has said earlier



Now if you want to say the meaning of words is determined by common agreement, well you need to show that that claim is established by science.

Nonsense! Dictionaries are compiled by lexicographers, not scientists.

if it is not, then I can reject it. If it is, then that means I can reject Jim's scientism. It also means any form of scientism like Jim's must be rejected. Which is it?

Or could it be that there actually is data. I could just as well say "No doubt, people who do not believe in miracles will not believe because it disagrees with their anti-religious beliefs."

Also, Keener rejects a natural/supernatural dichotomy as well. You'd know this if you'd read him, but you must also possess this keen ability to know the data of a book without having read it. Simply incredible! Wish I had that! It would save me so much work!

the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms. So where do "miracles" fit here AP?

No. He's making a historical claim about something that has happened in the natural world and it is to be verified by the standards of historywhich can be informed by sciences. Would you prefer we go to someone who was blind and blind them again and again?

And

And WHOOSH! goes the point right over Tassy's head.

Unfortunately, none of this is scientific. Instead, it's a philosophical statement about the nature of science that says science does not advance our knowledge all the while trying to advance our knowledge by saying it does not advance our knowledge.

Go deep enough in science and you inevitably get to philosophy. Your statement is the other way around. Science is built on philosophy. Philosophy is not built on science.

Philosophy is merely a tool of science although it has an important role - it is the glue that holds together scientific arguments and ensure logical consistency. But it cannot discover new truths about nature; it does not have the mechanism to do so. It can do nothing more than formulate and reformulate the knowledge contained in the scientific models, theories and laws of the universe.

[OingoBoingo]

Nonsense! Dictionaries are compiled by lexicographers, not scientists.

I'm not sure why you keep missing it, but that's precisely Apologiaphoenix' point. JimL said that you can't know if your beliefs are true or not without science. Apologiaphoenix is using a reductio ad absurdum about the meaning of words to show how ridiculous that claim is. There are, in fact, many things one can accept as true without the necessity of science. One of those things is the meaning of words.

Do you get it now?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'm not sure why you keep missing it, but that's precisely Apologiaphoenix' point. JimL said that you can't know if your beliefs are true or not without science. Apologiaphoenix is using a reductio ad absurdum about the meaning of words to show how ridiculous that claim is. There are, in fact, many things one can accept as true without the necessity of science. One of those things is the meaning of words.

Do you get it now?

He won't. Tassy is too blinded by his own scientism and atheistic presuppositionalism that he can't see what he's saying.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nonsense! Dictionaries are compiled by lexicographers, not scientists.

Ah. Then by Jim's standard, they're compiled by people who do not know if their definitions are true, because the only way you know if anything is true is by science.

Therefore, I have no reason to know if the dictionary definitions are true since they are not determined by science.

Okay. Guess I can't take that seriously.



No. It means I am going by Jim's definition. By the way, the idea that a consensus should be accepted regarding the meaning of a word, is that claim demonstrated by science? If not, then I guess I can't accept that either.



Well first off, you're claiming to be able to know Keener's thoughts on this matter, which to me seems very unscientific and since that claim is not demonstrated by science, I cannot accept it. Meanwhile, this shoe is on the other foot as well. Why should I not think skeptical historians discount miracles because they disagree with their worldview?

By the way, none of this refutes Keener's data. It must be nice to be able to ignore data because of motives. Christian historians can't ever be trusted! All other historians are perfectly objective and neutral and can be trusted!

the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms. So where do "miracles" fit here AP?

If there is no difference. lol. That's funny. Keener didn't say they're the same thing. He said that the dichotomy doesn't make sense! Is triangularity natural or supernatural? How about the number 2? How about morality? Some things don't fit into either category easily. As for miracles, the miracles are a historical claim and not a scientific claim. By your standards, we should not believe the Civil War accounts since we can't repeat it again.

What a great example of scientism.



Gotta love atheistic presuppositionalism. Tassy, are you going to end this with an altar call to come forward and accept material forces as your Lord and Savior?

And

Ooooh! Bart Ehrman! Never read him before! So it's okay to use Ehrman as an authority who has no agenda whatsoever and is perfectly objective and neutral, but it is not okay to use Keener.

Sorry, but Ehrman doesn't even interact with Keener. How do I know this? I read his latest book. He makes a claim about Miracles but no response to the biggest volume and most scholarly volume opposed to his worldview. Not even a mention. In fact, in his latest book, he dosen't even mention Richard Bauckham whose historical studies contradict the most what Ehrman has to say.



And a second whoosh goes by.



That's because Aristotle didn't do physical science always. He did have some false ideas on how that should be done. The problem is science also depends on the views of the day. You're basing science on materialism. Can you scientifically demonstrate materialism? If not, then you are using philosophy.

Philosophy is merely a tool of science although it has an important role - it is the glue that holds together scientific arguments and ensure logical consistency. But it cannot discover new truths about nature; it does not have the mechanism to do so. It can do nothing more than formulate and reformulate the knowledge contained in the scientific models, theories and laws of the universe.

On its own, yep. It does not discover truths about the physical world. No problem there. This assumes however that the highest knowledge is knowledge of the physical world. Why should I think that? And again, you've got it backwards. Science is the tool of philosophy. That's why it's based on what was called natural philosophy, the study of the material world. It was a branch of philosophy.

[OingoBoingo]

He won't. Tassy is too blinded by his own scientism and atheistic presuppositionalism that he can't see what he's saying.

That's too bad.

[JimL]

I'm not sure why you keep missing it, but that's precisely Apologiaphoenix' point. JimL said that you can't know if your beliefs are true or not without science. Apologiaphoenix is using a reductio ad absurdum about the meaning of words to show how ridiculous that claim is. There are, in fact, many things one can accept as true without the necessity of science. One of those things is the meaning of words.

Do you get it now?

One reason that you can not know if your beliefs are true or not is because if you know a thing to be true it is no longer a belief. For instance, i don't know, but i believe that you guys are being willifully ignorant about this. At least i hope you have not come to your conclusions after thinking it over. We don't need science to uncover what we already know, we create language and we give the words their meaning so we already know what they mean. The reason that you can accept the meaning of words as true is because what they mean isn't a belief in the first place. Its a rather comical argument that you make, but do carry on.

[JimL]

You don't "fully understand" quantum mechanics, Jim? JimL You don't understand ANY QM. You don't understand any General or Special Relativity. Your science understanding is about the 8th grade level at best. So what you are really doing is having faith that it works, you don't know why it works, how it works, and you have absolutely no way of checking it out. You just take the word of scientists that it works. Scientists are the priests of your religion. They tell you "AGW is a settled science" and you believe them, for instance. Now I believe a great deal of science works too, and is true. But at least I have a basic understanding of the science, can understand the concepts and check the results. But I don't just take science on faith. I know science can easily do a 180 and in 10 years they could tell us that QM was a good approximation but now we know that it was as lacking as Newton's laws of motion were compared to Relativity. Science used to scoff at plate tectonics but today it is the dominant theory. Scientists are human and subject to emotion and seeing what they want to see as anyone is.

Thats where you are wrong oh arrogant one. Scientists are, and understand that they are, human just like anyone else, which is why, in order not to fool themselves, they do science.

So whether it comes to religion or science, it actually boils down to faith.

This statement only goes to show how little you actually know about science. If science were like religion, if it all boiled down to faith, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

Some people like you, merely have faith because they are too ignorant to know whether to believe or not, so they just choose to either believe in it or not for no reason. Other people have a reasonable faith, based on evidence and checking out that evidence behind the claims, whether we are talking about science or religion.

There are some things about science that i believe Sparko, but do not know. This is do to reason, not faith. Faith has nothing to do with science, though some people like you believe that it does.

So when you mock religion and faith, we all know that you are too ignorant to even grasp where our faith comes from or why we believe. Because you only have faith based on smoke and mirrors and don't have enough knowledge to even check out the facts of what you claim to believe in.

I know perfectly well where your faith comes from, it comes from the same place all the different and varying faiths come from, and none of it has anything to do with science. Smoke and mirrors would be a good analogy.

It's really sad. You are a caveman throwing rocks at an astronaut claiming that he can never reach the moon because it is made of cheese.

LOL!

[OingoBoingo]

One reason that you can not know if your beliefs are true or not is because if you know a thing to be true it is no longer a belief.

Where did you get that idea? Didn't Plato famously define knowledge as justified true belief?

For instance, i don't know, but i believe that you guys are being willifully ignorant about this.

It has nothing to do with willful ignorance. I reject your claim outright. If, as I suspect, Plato is right (or, at least, more right than not) All knowledge is a form of belief, even if all beliefs are not a form of knowledge.

At least i hope you have not come to your conclusions after thinking it over. We don't need science to uncover what we already know, we create language and we give the words their meaning so we already know what they mean. The reason that you can accept the meaning of words as true is because what they mean isn't a belief in the first place. Its a rather comical argument that you make, but do carry on.

Uh, what? Dude, trust me, you're the one making the comical arguments here.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Where did you get that idea? Didn't Plato famously define knowledge as justified true belief?

It is the normally accepted term for knowledge, but the Gettier problem has raised some challenges to that. Most still say that if it is not a true definition of knowledge, the facts of justified, true, and beliefs must at least be part of what knowledge is.

[Tassman]

Ah. Then by Jim's standard, they're compiled by people who do not know if their definitions are true, because the only way you know if anything is true is by science.

Therefore, I have no reason to know if the dictionary definitions are true since they are not determined by science.

Okay. Guess I can't take that seriously.

Up to you!

No. It means I am going by Jim's definition. By the way, the idea that a consensus should be accepted regarding the meaning of a word, is that claim demonstrated by science? If not, then I guess I can't accept that either.

Up to you!

Well first off, you're claiming to be able to know Keener's thoughts on this matter, which to me seems very unscientific and since that claim is not demonstrated by science,

This is his starting position and unsurprisingly, his conclusion.

I cannot accept it.

Up to you!

Meanwhile, this shoe is on the other foot as well. Why should I not think skeptical historians discount miracles because they disagree with their worldview?

By the way, none of this refutes Keener's data. It must be nice to be able to ignore data because of motives. Christian historians can't ever be trusted! All other historians are perfectly objective and neutral and can be trusted!

Indeed! But it certainly doesn't support

If there is no difference. lol. That's funny. Keener didn't say they're the same thing. He said that the dichotomy doesn't make sense! Is triangularity natural or supernatural? How about the number 2? How about morality? Some things don't fit into either category easily.

As for miracles, the miracles are a historical claim and not a scientific claim. By your standards, we should not believe the Civil War accounts since we can't repeat it again.

What a great example of scientism.

Nope! It is reasonable to assume that the natural world is all there is until such time as credible evidence of a non-natural i.e. supernatural world exists. Thus the Civil War probably occurred given that it is supported by considerable documented evidence and artifacts and makes no supernatural claims, whereas NT miracles are much less probable precisely they are less well documented and are based on supernatural ideation. Not all evidence has equal value.

Gotta love atheistic presuppositionalism. Tassy, are you going to end this with an altar call to come forward and accept material forces as your Lord and Savior?

Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.

The demonstrable fact is that most historians apply Historical/Critical methodology whether you agree with it or not. This is how history is done!

Ooooh! Bart Ehrman! Never read him before! So it's okay to use Ehrman as an authority who has no agenda whatsoever and is perfectly objective and neutral, but it is not okay to use Keener.

Sorry, but Ehrman doesn't even interact with Keener. How do I know this? I read his latest book. He makes a claim about Miracles but no response to the biggest volume and most scholarly volume opposed to his worldview. Not even a mention. In fact, in his latest book, he doesn't even mention Richard Bauckham whose historical studies contradict the most what Ehrman has to say.

Perhaps he has good reason not to. Ehrman is a respected biblical historian and your sneering does not alter this fact.

And a second whoosh goes by.

That's because Aristotle didn't do physical science always. He did have some false ideas on how that should be done. The problem is science also depends on the views of the day. You're basing science on materialism. Can you scientifically demonstrate materialism? If not, then you are using philosophy.

The "knowledge of the day" in Aristotle's time was minimal compared with today and, accordingly, his philosophical premises, based on this inadequate knowledge about the universe, were mostly wrong.

On its own, yep. It does not discover truths about the physical world. No problem there.

physical or otherwise

This assumes however that the highest knowledge is knowledge of the physical world. Why should I think that?

It assumes nothing of the sort. OTOH, there is no established knowledge of anything other

And again, you've got it backwards. Science is the tool of philosophy. That's why it's based on what was called natural philosophy, the study of the material world. It was a branch of philosophy.

evolved into a new discipline.

I'm not sure why you keep missing it, but that's precisely Apologiaphoenix' point. JimL said that you can't know if your beliefs are true or not without science. Apologiaphoenix is using a reductio ad absurdum about the meaning of words to show how ridiculous that claim is. There are, in fact, many things one can accept as true without the necessity of science. One of those things is the meaning of words.

Do you get it now?

What YOU need

[Sparko]

Thats where you are wrong oh arrogant one. Scientists are, and understand that they are, human just like anyone else, which is why, in order not to fool themselves, they do science.

I am talking about you trusting what they say. If you don't understand the science, you have no way to know if they are right or just some quack. Look at Truthseeker, who believes vaccines are responsible for autism and all sorts of bad things. He believes doctors and scientists who "did science" and told him what he wanted to hear. And he ignores science that tells him that those other studies are a sham. You trust the results you want to trust and reject the rest. And you have no way of checking for yourself which is actually true, so you are basically using blind faith.

This statement only goes to show how little you actually know about science. If science were like religion, if it all boiled down to faith, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

Yes, let's bow down to the new priesthood: Scientists! For they know all and tell all. They will never lead us astray!

There are some things about science that i believe Sparko, but do not know. This is do to reason, not faith. Faith has nothing to do with science, though some people like you believe that it does.

first you mean "DUE to reason" not "do to reason" -- and second, if you don't know something yet you take someone's word on it, you are using "faith" - sometimes it is reasonable and sometimes it is blind. If you just accept it because scientists say so, then it is blind. And that is what you do.

For example, you believe in General and Special Relativity. Yet I remember a thread where you were discussing it with me and Shadowmaster and you showed that you don't understand it at all. You made the dumbass comment that if you were on a distant location from Earth and moved towards earth you would be moving into the future and if you moved away you would be moving into the past. If only time travel were that simple! LOL.

I know perfectly well where your faith comes from, it comes from the same place all the different and varying faiths come from, and none of it has anything to do with science. Smoke and mirrors would be a good analogy.

LOL!

You don't have a clue Jim. About anything. You suffer greatly from the dunning-kruger effect. You don't even realize how ridiculous you sound most of the time when you post about religion or science.