Scientific "Community"

[ajb]

But any methodology that segments faith-evidence, and human testimony related to faith-evidence, as not acceptable evidence, and admits every human testimony based on that methodology, is prejudiced.

Science must be based on objective evidence that is not just anecdotal. Moreover, the evidence must be repeatable, that is, any other group of scientits if they wish can conduct the same or different experiments and reach the same result. Of course this is all mod experimental errors and so on.

 

Faith based anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all! If you offer 'non-evidence' as evidence then it is not suprising that the scientific community seems closed to you.

Edited June 5, 2016 by ajb

[B. John Jones]

Science must be based on objective evidence that is not just anecdotal. Moreover, the evidence must be repeatable, that is, any other group of scientits if they wish can conduct the same or different experiments and reach the same result. Of course this is all mod experimental errors and so on.

 

Faith based anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all! If you offer 'non-evidence' as evidence then it is not suprising that the scientific community seems closed to you.

 

Scripture is hardly anecdotal, nor are the claims of faith-oriented science-enthusiasts. That's prejudice. You could have fun with your students testing the ant-farm scenario. I don't have the means or the team to do it.

[ajb]

Scripture is hardly anecdotal, nor are the claims of faith-oriented science-enthusiasts.

But it is anecdotal and full of propaganda. The biblical scriptures were written by people who had some message to push and historical or scientiifc accuracy was not their concern.

 

 

That's prejudice.

No, it is being objective. I hope you can see this.

 

You could have fun with your students testing the ant-farm scenario. I don't have the means or the team to do it.

Personally, I do not have an interest in that experiment, nor the means.

[Strange]

Today it seems that strict adherence and convention prevent dreams and imagination, which fueled some of the greatest inventions of history.

 

 

As science is still making great advances, this is clearly not true.

[swansont]

My intent is not enmity. What are your 2 reasonable answers?

 

 

I haven't seen any reasonable questions.

 

Well, so far the scientific community here seems cliquish. Did you know that Newton was once so lost in thought that he stumbled into a well? (So I hear.) I admire him for that. Today it seems that strict adherence and convention prevent dreams and imagination, which fueled some of the greatest inventions of history.

 

 

Then you know nothing of the scientific community. But we already knew that. Your view seems to be based on your ignorance; it's like being asked to describe a scene before you but you have your eyes shut, so you make up what you want to see.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

FYI, OT posts on evolution are here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95514-qs-on-evolution-split-from-scientific-community/

[John Cuthber]

But any methodology that segments faith-evidence, and human testimony related to faith-evidence, as not acceptable evidence, and admits every human testimony based on that methodology, is prejudiced.

You seem to have invented some strange concept you call "faith evidence".

What does it mean?

Is it faith- believing something even if nothing shows that it's true, or does it mean evidence- showing that something is true?

 

The two concepts are more or less opposites.

 

 

Scripture is hardly anecdotal, nor are the claims of faith-oriented science-enthusiasts. That's prejudice.

At one level you are right- scripture is hardly anecdotal. It isn't even that good.

An anecdote is something along the lines of "I saw a burning bush". If someone said that in court it would be accepted as evidence (at least that they believed they saw it- they might be mistaken)

One stage further removed "I heard John say that he saw a burning bush" is (if repeated in court) evidence that John said that- but it isn't evidence that it's true- John might have been winding me up. He might have been speaking allegorically or I might have misheard, or misunderstood him. It's not evidence that a bush burned.

Legally it's described as hearsay and it is not admissible as evidence.

 

With scripture, we don't know who saw the bush, we don't know to whom they described it, we don't know who wrote it down and we do know that all of the people who might have been involved in the process had a strong incentive to lie about it.

It's a matter of Fred said that Jack said that John said that he saw a burning bush.

Well, that's not evidence- it's a game of Chinese whispers.

There is no other field (apart from religion) where such a statement would be taken seriously.

Anywhere else it would be laughed at.

 

 

So, as you say, scripture isn't anecdotal. It is useless as evidence.

 

However I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think the scripture is somehow better than anecdote.

Well that's nonsense- why would it be?

Yet you think it is- probably because a man told you that it was- and you believed him because he was seen as some sort of authority figure.

Well, to quote your own words back at you

"That's prejudice. "

I mean really it is- you trust an old book because you will not recognise it as just an old book.