If it's true then you were wrong when you said they were terms used by natural science.

 

 

 

You are visiting a science discussion site. When in Rome...

Haste makes waste. I clearly distinguished between "natural science" and "formal science," those terms being of the former class.

Haste makes waste. I clearly distinguished between "natural science" and "formal science," those terms being of the former class.

You never explained what the alleged difference is. Physics is not natural science?

Haste makes waste. I clearly distinguished between "natural science" and "formal science," those terms being of the former class.

 

!

Moderator Note

This is a perfect example of the problem noted earlier. You believe you "clearly distinguished" something that makes no sense. If you are going to make these distinctions up, please explain them. Nobody knows the terms you're using, there is no "formal science", and it's unclear why you think there is. The fact that you think you're being "clear" is the leading contributor to why you aren't.

 

Please try harder to use correct terms, or ask questions instead of making assertions. You need to understand that you are NOT being "clear".

"Natural Science" being, "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass." "Formal Science" being, "Nope. Can't do that. Wrong process."

"Natural Science" being, "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass." "Formal Science" being, "Nope. Can't do that. Wrong process."

 

 

That doesn't appear to be consistent with anything in reality.

 

Formal science might be characterised as, "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass. Let me compare it with others and see if I can come up with an explanation. Now let me see if this explanation works for other leaves. It seems to so I'll publish it and see if others can reproduce my results and either shoot it down or extend it."

 

 

That doesn't appear to be consistent with anything in reality.

 

Formal science might be characterised as, "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass. Let me compare it with others and see if I can come up with an explanation. Now let me see if this explanation works for other leaves. It seems to so I'll publish it and see if others can reproduce my results and either shoot it down or extend it."

What's the difference between this, and "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass. Let me compare it with others and see if I can come up with an explanation. This comparison seems to betray the hidden truth of Scripture. Now let me see if this explanation works for other leaves. It seems to so I'll publish it and see if others can reproduce my results and either shoot it down or extend it."

Edited June 4, 20169 yr by B. John Jones

"The hidden truth of scripture"? What are you talking about? (Also, which scripture? There's a different one for each religion.)

I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about Scripture. The writings of Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles. The Bible.

Why Judeo-Christian scripture specifically and not any of the scriptures from any of the hundreds of other religions?

Those men are dead.

Edited June 4, 20169 yr by B. John Jones

I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about Scripture. The writings of Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles. The Bible.

And this has what to do with the physics of the luna phases?

Those men are dead.

 

 

So are the authors of your scriptures.

What's the difference between this, and "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass. Let me compare it with others and see if I can come up with an explanation. This comparison seems to betray the hidden truth of Scripture. Now let me see if this explanation works for other leaves. It seems to so I'll publish it and see if others can reproduce my results and either shoot it down or extend it."

 

 

You can, of course, do that. People have done that. They have used a scientific approach to study the events and people in the Bible. The result is that some things appear to be true and some are not.

I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about Scripture. The writings of Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles. The Bible.

 

 

The Bible is neither a science textbook nor a science journal. It does not describe models or empirical testing of anything. It carries as much weight in science as does quoting the National Enquirer

I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about Scripture. The writings of Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles. The Bible.

 

!

Moderator Note

I'm going to stop this here. B. John Jones, you really need to understand science better before criticizing it. You have this caricature of it in your head that just doesn't match reality. It's not uncommon, but it doesn't help you learn anything.

 

Also, we make it quite clear that religion and religious writings aren't topics we bring up in the science sections, including Speculations. There is nothing in the Bible that can help you with this topic.

 

You continue to make things unclear with your terminology, and you're now preaching more than supporting your premises. You've been given more than sufficient answers to revise your idea. You should know where you've gone wrong. Without additional supportive evidence, please don't bring this subject up again.

 

Thread closed.