BillB
Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009
|
| Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 20 2011,06:09) | | Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 19 2011,22:19) | | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 19 2011,21:14) | Clive waxes eloquent:
| Quote | | Do you think science is conducted outside of humans doing it, and using the power of inference, thus common sense, when doing it? Science is a tool for descriptions of nature, not real explanations behind the curtain of why nature is the way it is. We can’t get behind the curtain, we can only use our powers of inference and describe nature, we cannot explain our descriptions as we can explain the logic behind driving on the right side of the road or the necessary usage of a notary public. The only knowledge we uncover about the world through is inductive descriptions, not real explanations of the ideas behind nature. What science is in itself, which is nothing but a consensual agreement of a methodology, is not the same as the thing studied. You seem to equate natural occurrences with the methodology used to describe the occurrences. The methodology is a convention, what it hits up against, what everyone encounters everyday, that is, the natural world, is not science, it is the natural world. The methodology to describe the natural world is absolutely a convention, and we call that conventional methodology science. The thing studied is not the thing you use to study it. Science is a consensual methodology of the best way to describe nature, which is itself a value judgment, and value judgments, like methodologies, don’t physically exist. You shouldn’t equate the thing worked on with the methodology with which you work. If science discovers a tree, the tree is not science, and science is not the tree. |
More! More!
BTW, I think we have an unclaimed signature:
"If science discovers a tree, the tree is not science, and science is not the tree." |
Oh, but there is more. You lucky man -- you've hit upon an extraordinarily rich vein of tard, almost entirely free from rational impurities.
From the same vein, a little upstream:
| Quote | | No, I was designed by two intelligent agents, my parents, and they were designed by four, etc., until you get back to an intelligent agent that can imbue life like itself, not machines like itself. Top down, not bottom-up. |
Wow.
The discovery of the Clive Hayes Sequence: 2,4,...,1
I guess Clive just realized that there was rampant inbreeding among his ancestors. |
He was "designed" by his parents? They practiced Eugenics? Genetic manipulation? Designer genes? What? Were they related to Arnim Zola? Replicants?
What!!!!!!
(Does he think that since his parents chose to have him - at least, that's what they tell him - that qualifies as "design"?)
Doesn't "Top Down, not Bottom-Up" sound like an...interesting...club or hobby? |
If Clive followed through with the implications of defining 'design' as reproduction then even single celled organisms would qualify as designers - perhaps you could stretch it even further and say that a meteor designed an impact crater.
|
