nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW
461
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 370:
Line 370: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→You Just Gotta Be Kidding Me
: "''Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of circular reasoning?''": No, because you have not demonstrated a circle.
: "''Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of circular reasoning?''": No, because you have not demonstrated a circle.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:23, 30 January 2008 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:23, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Philip I believe your example is a bit misleading. For example
: Evolutionists, on the other hand, ''do'' use this circular reasoning:
:# The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.
:# Dating methods are developed ''on this basis'' (e.g. assuming no global flood).
:# The dates derived by this method are used as proof that there was no global flood (e.g. civilizations are older than the supposed date of the Flood).
Your first line about the bible, how would a scientist in feudal china (who had not heard of Christianity) make a conclusion that the history of the bible is wrong? This is the difference, to use the scientific method correctly you must eliminate as much of a world view as possible so that predispositions you would assume due to your world view would not have as much of an impact on your studies. That is one reason why it was not until 200 years or so that things began to change in the scientific community, because scientists at that time were using the world view offered to them through their religious upbringing. This of course causes issues when you are collaborating with scientists with different world views hence the reason why science is based on the burden of proof not the lack of. This is where your analogy is misleading, you started by saying that the bible said (the hypothesis) then performed the experiment (Except you commented "on that basis", assuming an insertion of your personal world view) then made your conclusion to support your hypothesis. The scientist does not make the hypothesis of the biblical history is wrong, their hypothesis is based on observation first (I see that the strata here that is 150 feet deep is the same over there at 150 feet deep) then they experiment (I dig somewhere else at 150 feet deep) then they draw their conclusions. Just to explain the differences if they are not so clear, the scientist assumes nothing at first, just observes, then hypothesis, then experiments, then concludes. Your analogy is based on the assumption that the scientist has a predisposition to disprove the bible, which is far from the truth since the scientific method ignores religion. Ignoring religion is not the same as disproving it.
The primary difference is that where the bible literalist will try to equate their observations to the bible the scientist trys to equate their hypothesis to their observations. As such the scientist’s observations can not be circular since they begin with nothing but their worldview (which by use of the scientific method is limited) whereas the observations of the bible literalist can be circular since with their base of equating their observations with the bible, they always interpret the data with a biblical view. As such they tend to be circular. For a logical example try this,
#Who created the universe?
Bible literalist: God, because the bible says god created it.
Scientist: We do not know who created it but evidence supports the conjecture of how it developed.
Do you see the logic? The literalist, because of the biblical preconceived notion can only apply circular reasoning whereas the scientist can not since they have no preconceived notion. All they can offer is what conjectures they have based on observations.
#How did man come to be?
Bible literalist: God created man in his image as stated in the bible.
Scientist: We conjecture that man evolved through a series of steps to its current form by slight mutation as observed in other life forms as well as supported in the fossil record.
Notice how the bible literalist would provide a definitive answer whereas the scientist would not, a conjecture is not an absolute. This again is a prime example as to why the scientist (who uses the scientific method) can not employ circular reasoning since they start with nothing in terms of worldview (as limited by the scientific method) and the bible literalist must equate all observations to the bible.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)