13th September 2004, 6:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 14th September 2004, 10:44 AM by Dark Jaguar.)
Not sure what's going on, but I think it's safe to assume this is the reason I turned on "ignore".
Look, the whole thing started a while ago when this was the only way I could see not getting into huge debates with OB1. It was a last resort, yes, and I know a huge problem with myself when I see it, that being, I kept getting dragged into arguments. I'll keep the block up until as such time as I think I can avoid getting sucked in.
Besides, it's not like it's affecting anyone :D.
So anyway, it's clear you agree with me on this. I will make a point of saying that I don't think having faith is wrong. I'm a Christian, I've said so before, sometimes blind faith with no evidence is great. HOWEVER, when it's about science, not about trusting people, an attitude of skeptisism is needed. If a stranger walks up to you, without any proof, and says "here, drink this and pay me for it", skepticism is needed. Again, something MAY very well be true, depending on the tests done to it. The possibility that SOMEONE somewhere CAN dowse wasn't ruled out by the tests done. At times things can still POSSIBLY be true if the tests didn't completely exclude it, but the chanes are low. I must repeat myself, and sorry if it's redundant, but it's not a matter of actually thinking all claims that haven't been tested are FALSE, it's a matter of NON-belief, that is, the scientist has no strong feelings either way until the test is done. HOWEVER, when that claim goes against things the method HAS shown to be true, a scientist can and should be allowed to consider it false until otherwise shown. I mean, that's the entire POINT. When all the evidence stacks on one side, and there's none for the other, it is illogical to just plain believe in the other. The scientific method is, when able to be executed flawlessly, the best tool we have. All other methods for finding the truth are flawed. Name one time the scientific method has, after flawless execution, resulted in exposing something as one way when it is known that it is another way. I mean, test something everyone knows using a quality double-blinded and controlled test, and see if you can ever get it to show an untrue result, aside from compromising the test itself, in which case it no longer meets the method's standards.
Look, the whole thing started a while ago when this was the only way I could see not getting into huge debates with OB1. It was a last resort, yes, and I know a huge problem with myself when I see it, that being, I kept getting dragged into arguments. I'll keep the block up until as such time as I think I can avoid getting sucked in.
Besides, it's not like it's affecting anyone :D.
So anyway, it's clear you agree with me on this. I will make a point of saying that I don't think having faith is wrong. I'm a Christian, I've said so before, sometimes blind faith with no evidence is great. HOWEVER, when it's about science, not about trusting people, an attitude of skeptisism is needed. If a stranger walks up to you, without any proof, and says "here, drink this and pay me for it", skepticism is needed. Again, something MAY very well be true, depending on the tests done to it. The possibility that SOMEONE somewhere CAN dowse wasn't ruled out by the tests done. At times things can still POSSIBLY be true if the tests didn't completely exclude it, but the chanes are low. I must repeat myself, and sorry if it's redundant, but it's not a matter of actually thinking all claims that haven't been tested are FALSE, it's a matter of NON-belief, that is, the scientist has no strong feelings either way until the test is done. HOWEVER, when that claim goes against things the method HAS shown to be true, a scientist can and should be allowed to consider it false until otherwise shown. I mean, that's the entire POINT. When all the evidence stacks on one side, and there's none for the other, it is illogical to just plain believe in the other. The scientific method is, when able to be executed flawlessly, the best tool we have. All other methods for finding the truth are flawed. Name one time the scientific method has, after flawless execution, resulted in exposing something as one way when it is known that it is another way. I mean, test something everyone knows using a quality double-blinded and controlled test, and see if you can ever get it to show an untrue result, aside from compromising the test itself, in which case it no longer meets the method's standards.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)