thordaddy
Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
PuckSR opines,
Quote | Umm actually...we are using the one that applies to scientific study.... empirical can also mean [archaic] Relying on medical quackery
gravity can be used to refer to "a manner that is serious and solemn"... but if we are speaking of gravity in the scientific sense...you cant start mouthing off about our obsession with "a serious and solemn manner" (-1) bad definition BTW...once again your logic sucks "just because A means originating in B doesnt mean anything B is A"...absolutely correct just because humans originate from a sperm and ovum doesn't mean anything from sperm and ovum based is human... (-1) Bad Logic |
But thordaddy already stated,
Quote | You're not representing the entire definition, but only the part that helps define science. |
And stated before that,
Quote | Just because empirical means originating in experience or observation doesn't mean anything experienced and observed is empirical? OK... now I see the problem. Your definition of empirical is distorted and limited to suit your scientific bias. |
I stand by my defintion because you have already conceded in another thread that,
Quote | PuckSR: Science cannot tell you when life begins, science cannot tell you what conciousness is, and science cannot tell you if the world is designed.
|
So if science can not do these things then it makes no sense to use the scientific definition for empirical. It only assures ignorance.
Then you say,
Quote | Really, cause last time I checked the 2 major world religions are based on books not observation and experience...the only rational faith system I am currently aware of is Deism....but I will give you Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and Confucism if you ask nicely;) |
I believe the bible contains historical references which would certainly encompass observation and experience. But, my experience and observations, as of yet, have had nothing to do with any organized religion or the books they proffer.
But more to the point, religion attempts to answer those questions above that you readily concede science won't or can't. The attempt at finding those answers using religion are certainly via interpretation of empirical evidence. There is no other process in the natural world, is there?
But do you agree that science and religion are at least fundamentally identical in that they share the same mechanism, function and very similar structure?
Next you opine,
Quote | (+1) fallacy on my part What I should have said is that ID could very easily be true, but no empirical evidence has been submitted...your right...my comment didnt make any sense |
What you mean to say is that no empirical evidence has been submitted that resides within the scientifically-restricted meaning of empirical.
What you also have said with this concession is that ID could be a "valid natural explanation." This is equivalent to saying empirical evidence for an IDer exists in the natural world, but science as of yet is not an endeavor of sufficiently advanced intelligence.
Quote | Now, almost every debate pro-ID in the past, by brilliant minds was made from a philosophical perspective.... I can think of at least one pro-ID guy in the past who was a brilliant mathematician...but he didnt argue it mathematically...he argued it philosophically
BTW...the same people who supported ID in the past...a lot of them also espoused the virtues of man-boy love.... So i guess there is empirical evidence for the benefit of having homosexual relationships with teenagers.... There was also huge support for bleeding people who were sick....i guess we have a lot of evidence for the medical advantages of that too...? |
I'm simply bewildered by this excerpt.
Quote | (-1) Just because it was popular in the past, that doesnt indicate any particular advantage to the belief |
And because it is popular in the present just assures it to be relegated to being only popular in the past. We need only to wait.
I'll allow you to retabulate the score.
|