Adamah - Do you have a PHd in stating the bloody obvious?
I earned a doctorate in science many decades ago, if that's what you're asking, and have much clinical experience applying all that knowledge to help others.
But based on your improper abbreviation of doctor of science ('PhD': note with letters are capitalized: you got 1/3 correct) allow me to suggest it's likely you don't hold an advanced degree in science, since anyone who HAD done all the hard work required to earn such a degree isn't likely to NOT know the proper abbreviation that designates all the hard work they performed.
NOW, do I KNOW for certain that you don't have a PhD? Of course not: it may be that you mistyped it, or there MAY be different practices used in your region, etc, etc (where etc points to known unknowns). But combined with what you've misrepresented sbout the certainty of science (which is a common misunderstanding held by those who DON'T understand the limits of science), I thinking the odds are greater you haven't engaged in any formalized study of science that led to an advanced degree (I won't embarrass you by asking to answer publicly).
That's the kind of exclusion of other possibilities that I suspect SBF is referring to, where the great tendency of human nature is to dogmatically exclude all the other possibilities in a close-minded manner (a trait that suspiciously smells like exposing one's past drive to join a dogmatic cult, even likely to attain a position of responsibility within the group, where close-mindedness is considered a POSITIVE trait for a JW, defined as "protecting one's faith" by Paul).
Of course there are no sacred cows in science, of course we must follow the evidence wherever it leads, and there is no place for dogma in science.
That's what I was objecting to: you seemingly misrepresent science as possessing a level of certainty about the physical World by using phrases (such as "incontrovertable facts", as if some ideas are above being tested or challenged) which simply isn't true. In my eyes, you might as well be claiming there is a God who KNOWS everything, since the reality is science is NOT omniscient, and doesn't even claim to be.
But this is not a thread about the philosophy of science despite SBFs best efforts to derail it. If it was a thread about the philosophy of science I would have used much more careful language.
Well, you could've fooled me and the others then.
Perhaps I misread the topic (and am not a mind-reader), but you're asking others to compare their theologicial-based beliefs against a science-based belief system, and that falls squarely into the domain of philosophy of beliefs, comparing the philosophy of religion to philosophy of science.
With an abundance of evidence science shows that humans evolved from non-human ancestors over millions of years. Evengelicals continue to insisist that we descended from a first created pair 6000 years ago.
In this context SBF insists there is no such thing as a fact.
My point in posting was to clarify that the commonalities are greater than the differences. You are taking an extreme position that isn't backed by FACTS, and he's taking the other extreme (likely to get you to see the fallacy of your approach to make a valid point). We all agree on the endpoint/conclusion, it's just a matter of how one GETS to that conclusion.
Cofty said-
What came first, the chicken or the egg. - Egg
And that's a conclusion stated as if it's backed by science?
Anyone who understands the evolutionary theory (eg definition of 'species', etc) recognizes it's a malformed question, where just because a question can be phrased in fashion that doesn't violate the rules of proper grammar and logic doesn't mean an answer exists! To suggest anything otherwise (either 'chicken' OR 'egg') suggests someone who doesn't understand the inherent uncertainty of the science, and suggests someone who seeks absolute answers to questions which cannot be had (seemingly thinking science offers a knife that 'cuts' with a much-greater precision than it does, when it just doesn't possess and CANNOT possess, due to current limits).
(It's OT to this thread, but I'm willing to explain why it's a malformed question without a simple answer in another thread.)
There's an old saying, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread". The problem with the expression of course is that angels aren't proven to exist, either, LOL! But putting that aside, it contains certain truths.
Now sure, many doctors WILL use the word "fact" as a short-hand used when communicating with patients, since most people are suckers for falling for the claims of some scammer who professes to KNOW an absolute when they don't, vs someone who couches the honest and truthful answer with room for uncertainties (where NO absolutes exist, with TOTAL certainty). So people usually fall victim to the former's braggadocios claim of certainty.
That false certainty is depicted in Eric Hovind's approach to debating Thunderfoot, where Eric tries to exploit a scientist's honest disclosure of their lack of ABSOLUTE certainty, in order to conclude that believing in God is BETTER, that he KNOWS God exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGjaEMP8ACU
(there's a full video on the encounter on Thunderfoot's YouTube page, if you're a masochist for torture.)
IMO, Thunderfoot gets a bit too esoteric for Eric (who's clearly never taken a philosophy course before, or at least didn't learn anything), as Thunderfoot fails to connect on his level by not explaining in terms Eric can grasp. Eric wants to engage in pseudo-intellectual babble in a futile effort to prove God exists, where he asks Thunderfoot a series of silly malformed questions designed only to make him look weak on camera to believers, based on his dubious claim of possessing ABSOLUTE knowledge handed down from God. Instead, Eric only looks the fool who cannot grasp the basic difference between 'assumptions' and 'knowledge' claims. Thunderfoot runs a 'retard count' on his same footage, which only makes him appear as arrogant and childish, IMO.)
Creationists seemingly doesn't understand the language of science is STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, a method that determines only the LIKELIHOOD of a claim based on PROBABILITIES (where p=1 is almost NEVER achieved, except by randomness). Instead of waiting for absolutes, the certainty required to act on a claim is gauged by relying on 'confidence intervals', a calculation that determines the PROBABILITY of an outcome being not just due to random chance, but how tightly the outcome is correlated with the proposed cause. It's WHY scientists run 'best-fit' calculations to interpret the data, not looking for ABSOLUTE certainty, but the best-fitting model that explains the observations.
Underneath all of that remains a HUGE asterisk of making no claim to certainty, a YMMV statement, and is overlooked by many non-scientists (or those who seek to turn science into a religion, which it most defininitely is NOT).
Adam
