Difference between revisions of "Talk:Modern science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(the idea is important - the number of articles is not) |
m (not the same as) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::Yes, but then Ed would only have 49 articles. Perspective, please, gents. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 15:59, 21 March 2008 (EDT) | ::Yes, but then Ed would only have 49 articles. Perspective, please, gents. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 15:59, 21 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
| − | :::Granted that we don't need three separate articles. But "science" | + | :::Granted that we don't need three separate articles. But "science" is not the same as "physical science". Ever hear of the [[:Category:Life Sciences]]? |
:::Liberals say that the material world is "all there is", and on that basis that contend that "science" must limit itself to study of the natural world. For those who entertain (for the sake of argument) that a supernatural world or a supernatural being might exist, they always insist that its/their operations would be chaotic and arbitrary. (You can't study random stuff, right?) | :::Liberals say that the material world is "all there is", and on that basis that contend that "science" must limit itself to study of the natural world. For those who entertain (for the sake of argument) that a supernatural world or a supernatural being might exist, they always insist that its/their operations would be chaotic and arbitrary. (You can't study random stuff, right?) | ||
Revision as of 20:14, March 21, 2008
Demonstrate that it is orderly. BobCherry 17:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
- Prove that you're a human being with free will, and not just the result of deterministic material forces. --Ed Poor Talk 17:32, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Needed?
We already have Natural science (which was Science, and was renamed Physical science. And then we got Science again as a separate article. Do we really need Modern science as well? Philip J. Rayment 01:50, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
- Er, and it's not so much an article, as a quotation. And there's no category, or bolding. HelpJazz 10:27, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, but then Ed would only have 49 articles. Perspective, please, gents. Aziraphale 15:59, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
- Granted that we don't need three separate articles. But "science" is not the same as "physical science". Ever hear of the Category:Life Sciences?
- Liberals say that the material world is "all there is", and on that basis that contend that "science" must limit itself to study of the natural world. For those who entertain (for the sake of argument) that a supernatural world or a supernatural being might exist, they always insist that its/their operations would be chaotic and arbitrary. (You can't study random stuff, right?)
- This contradicts the (modern?) Christian view that "an orderly universe makes sense only if it were designed and created by an orderly Creator".