Discussion:
science from talk.origins
(too old to reply)
Dale
2016-04-24 04:37:37 UTC
Permalink
there was a recent thread on the same topic, I think it would be
valuable if someone picked this up for a regualr posting

here are a couple considerations

the definition of science on wiktionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science

the wikipedia listing for "the philosophy of science"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

1) logic is based on inference, induction or deduction

2) pure induction requires you know the whole to derive all the
pieces, who knows "the whole"?

3) pure induction requires you know all the pieces to derive the
whole, who knows all the pieces?

4) partial induction can be validated by logical proofs and confirmed
by observation, it can start with either one

for instance, all red cows are cows

5) partial deduction only results in probailities, for instance,
chickens trust a farmer who feeds them 100 times, then on the 101 time
the farmer harvests the chicken, there is 100% probaility but that
requires in statistical means a "theory of anything" and not just a
"theory of everything"

6) abstraction or imagination are not clear to me if they even exist,
assuming logic only, same with illogic

I have done some reading on www.talkorigins.org which is an FAQ for
talk.origins, I am not satisfied with the following in the preface

The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide
mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions
(FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently
rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other
creationist pseudosciences
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
raven1
2016-04-24 15:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
there was a recent thread on the same topic, I think it would be
valuable if someone picked this up for a regualr posting
I doubt that very much.
BruceS
2016-04-24 23:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
there was a recent thread on the same topic, I think it would be
valuable if someone picked this up for a regualr posting
I doubt that very much.
You doubt that it would be valuable, or that there was a recent thread
on the same topic? Or do you doubt that Dale thinks? EMWTK

Side question: has anyone tried to read your mind lately? I miss
Graham's contributions to Usenet.
Thrinaxodon
2016-04-26 19:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by BruceS
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
there was a recent thread on the same topic, I think it would be
valuable if someone picked this up for a regualr posting
I doubt that very much.
You doubt that it would be valuable, or that there was a recent thread
on the same topic? Or do you doubt that Dale thinks? EMWTK
Side question: has anyone tried to read your mind lately? I miss
Graham's contributions to Usenet.
I`m the guy that wrote the thread, IMHO. I ignore Dale's posts, he has
no bearing on my thoughts.
--
"I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
me." - Cao Cao

http://oxyaena.org/

also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/

oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org
Loading...