nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 143:
Line 143: + + + +
→China: Response to MetcalfeM
It is ludicrous to suggest the science only came into its own because of a christian worldview. The early chinese were extremely advanced in the science of astronomy, chemistry and physics to name but a few long before christianity was introduced to their country. And, frankly speaking, this quote "In my view, “objectivity” does not exist in science. Even in the act of gathering data, decisions about what data to record and what to ignore reflect the framework of the scientist" is absurd. Not only is it opinion but even christian scientists will ignore or record data which fits their POV. This article needs MAJOR work however I fear my edits will be deleted so I'll keep my fingers away from it.
It is ludicrous to suggest the science only came into its own because of a christian worldview. The early chinese were extremely advanced in the science of astronomy, chemistry and physics to name but a few long before christianity was introduced to their country. And, frankly speaking, this quote "In my view, “objectivity” does not exist in science. Even in the act of gathering data, decisions about what data to record and what to ignore reflect the framework of the scientist" is absurd. Not only is it opinion but even christian scientists will ignore or record data which fits their POV. This article needs MAJOR work however I fear my edits will be deleted so I'll keep my fingers away from it.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: On your first point, the following comes from a review of Stark's book (see the bibliography in this article). The reference to China is clearly not a direct quote, but presumably a summation of Stark's comments on the matter:
{{QuoteBox|What is science? It is a combination of observation and theory that leads to testable predictions and prohibitions about the results of further observations. A great deal of knowledge was gathered by observation and by trial and error in all ancient cultures, but this is not science. Aristotle, for example, observed widely and theorized extensively, but he did not test his theories against his observations so he was not a scientist. Alchemy and astrology were highly developed in China, Islamic regions, India and ancient Greece and Rome, but only in medieval Europe did these become the sciences of chemistry and astronomy. ‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe.’ The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork (pp. 123, 126–127)[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/]}}
: On your second point, the article does not say that Christian scientists are perfect either, and you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that it is "absurd ... opinion", then indicate that Christian scientists will ''also'' do this. The clear implication is that Christian scientists will do what non-Christian scientists are also doing. So you seem to agree that it ''does'' happen.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 17 January 2008 (EST)