Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2013 15:59:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 11, 2013 14:18:17 GMT -5
You don't really need the seraration of church and state rules. Creationism doesn't belong in science classes because it's wrong. If creationism is science, then the four elements and alchemy should join the chemistry curriculum and the aether should be brought back into physics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 17:45:19 GMT -5
Did we watch the same video? I didn't hear anything said about separation of church and state rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 11, 2013 19:21:11 GMT -5
He didn't speak of separation of church and state, but the only (or close to only) people who deny evolution are creationists, and theirs is a religious belief. Presently, without the separation doctrine, there is nothing to keep this religion-backed ignorance out of the public schools. In a rational world the simple fact that it's wrong would be enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 21:13:22 GMT -5
He didn't speak of separation of church and state, but the only (or close to only) people who deny evolution are creationists, and theirs is a religious belief. Presently, without the separation doctrine, there is nothing to keep this religion-backed ignorance out of the public schools. In a rational world the simple fact that it's wrong would be enough. I hope, Raybar, that you aren't implying that without religion, this would be a rational world. I give you only one of numerous examples of irrational beliefs. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/flat-earth-society-psychology_n_2038198.html |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 11, 2013 23:24:35 GMT -5
Well, this thread started with Nye's little talk about creationism, and that's all I was talking about.
Richard Feynman: "If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong."
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Sept 13, 2013 0:31:49 GMT -5
Give it up. Lily  You can just ask what kind of experiment "proves" that there is a rational world and when you then start thinking about it, you will discover that it is a belief, that is wrong as science goes, because you can't observe rational and irrational. As to "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong" is itself wrong as it is not subject to observation as per science. It is a belief in the mind of those who believe in it. If we turn into a deduction as a part of logic, then it is invalid(wrong): Premise: If it disagrees with experiment, then it is wrong.(Rule) Premise: It disagrees with experiment. (Observation) Conclusion: It is wrong. (Circular claim and thus invalid, what needs to be proven is taken for granted) The conclusion is circular because what needs to be proven is assumed in the first premise and thus is not rational if we include the requirement for something being rational, that it also must be logic. So please ask all those who believe in a rational world what it looks like as per observation and you find that they are "irrational" according to their own rule of irrational- Premise: There are people who don't give evidence for claims for which observation works. Conclusion: These people are irrational. The problem is that the word irrational is not itself based on observation, but rather thinking and you can't observe thinking. Thus you can't observe a rational world through science, because you can't observe that the world is rational. With regards Mikkel PS: Raybar, the demand of separation of church and state is a belief and not an observation based on science. |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 13, 2013 8:57:58 GMT -5
"If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong" may not satisfy the rules of logic and deduction, but it works pretty well as a basic rule of science.
=====
That the separation of church and state is a good idea is political belief, based not on science but on the observation of how things work when they are mixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Sept 13, 2013 12:18:55 GMT -5
"If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong" may not satisfy the rules of logic and deduction, but it works pretty well as a basic rule of science. ===== That the separation of church and state is a good idea is political belief, based not on science but on the observation of how things work when they are mixed. I see that you didn't comment about the subjective, rhetorical and non-scientific claim of a rational world. So let us look closer: You require science when it suits your belief and not when that suits your belief. You claim something about the world - evolution and demand science. You claim something about the world - politics and don't demand science. But the problem is that both evolution and politics are part of the same world. So why don't you demand science when it comes to politics? Further would you please explain using an experiment what a rational world is? And yet further what is the connection between how things work and a good idea; i.e. how do you know a good idea? In other words, Raybar, as in the other thread in Politics (and rants) we end with "eye of the beholder". Yet if I remember correctly you believe in objective criterion when it comes to ethics, but apparently you also accept subjectivity? |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 14, 2013 13:01:21 GMT -5
Premise: If it disagrees with experiment, then it is wrong.(Rule) Premise: It disagrees with experiment. (Observation) Conclusion: It is wrong. (Circular claim and thus invalid, what needs to be proven is taken for granted) The conclusion is circular because what needs to be proven is assumed in the first premise and thus is not rational if we include the requirement for something being rational, that it also must be logic. This is incorrect. You have substituted the rule for a first premise. You have not said what “it” is. What is to be examined to determine whether it agrees or disagrees with experiment? A trivial (and perhaps silly) example might look like this: ===== “If it disagrees with experiment, then it’s wrong” is from The Messenger Series of lectures done by Richard Feynman in 1964 called “The Character of Physical Law.” It appears at about 16 minutes 50 seconds into lecture 7: “Seeking New Laws.” research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/#data=3|72036f54-7e17-4435-b972-a18050d5828b|| |
|
You can just ask what kind of experiment "proves" that there is a rational world and when you then start thinking about it, you will discover that it is a belief, that is wrong as science goes, because you can't observe rational and irrational.