Quote (Ysolol @ 19 May 2010 14:08)

Well I'm going to go ahead and throw the combobreak argument out there, which is basically what infinite said.

Science is limited by perspective and subjectivity. All scientific means are subjective in that the most basic sciences (chemistry and physics) are bound to use tools that follow the "laws" they are trying to prove. To objectively provide evidence you would have use tools and means that exist beyond the physics you are testing, and likewise with chemistry. Even if this was possible those tools would also be bound to a set of rules and would themselves have a degree of subjectivity. What you end up with is an infinite chain of tools proving tools in an attempt to reach objectivity.

So what I am saying is that science is built on faith, in the same way religion is built on faith. Each side believes their tools are objective, or at least enough so to adequately support their viewpoint. It is foolish to attempt to "prove" anything as there is always the argument of objectivity.

Quote (hATemOnkEy @ May 19 2010 09:12am)

I disagree.

For a theory in science to be valid (or at least, to be thought of as valid) it has to be falsifiable. Anyone is open to test the same phenomena that the theory is trying to explain. In religion this would be called heresy.

Quote (Ysolol @ 19 May 2010 14:14)

That is an illusion of language. The language assumes we are assuming our tools are objective, when really they are subjective because the tools are bound to the rules of the universe they are attempting to measure or qualify.

Quote (hATemOnkEy @ May 19 2010 09:19am)

I'll agree that any human theory or hypothesis is in essence a subjective statement.

But religion makes it's claim on revelation (I know I'm generalizing here), and not on experiment.

Although science might not be able to claim true objectivity, it resembles it closely. While religion remains pure subjectivity.

Quote (Ysolol @ 19 May 2010 09:23)

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, but objectivity and subjectivity are polar differences. You can't be "mostly objective," you are either objective or you are subjective. So for one side to criticize the other on objectivity is hilarious.

Now if you move the argument towards "I don't believe in God because I can't test God." Well that is like not believing in aerodynamics because you can't flap your arms and fly. Just because we lack the tools to "test" for God doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Quote (Fooba @ May 19 2010 09:26am)

Then we reach a point where anything can exist. It just doesn't have proof to back it up.
I believe in a flying bagel etc.

Quote (Ysolol @ 19 May 2010 14:23)

Yeah, I understand what you are saying, but objectivity and subjectivity are polar differences. You can't be "mostly objective," you are either objective or you are subjective. So for one side to criticize the other on objectivity is hilarious.

Now if you move the argument towards "I don't believe in God because I can't test God." Well that is like not believing in aerodynamics because you can't flap your arms and fly. Just because we lack the tools to "test" for God doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Quote

[T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.

Quote (Ysolol @ May 19 2010 06:08am)

Well I'm going to go ahead and throw the combobreak argument out there,which is basically what infinite said.

Science is limited by perspective and subjectivity. All scientific means are subjective in that the most basic sciences (chemistry and physics) are bound to use tools that follow the "laws" they are trying to prove. To objectively provide evidence you would have use tools and means that exist beyond the physics you are testing, and likewise with chemistry. Even if this was possible those tools would also be bound to a set of rules and would themselves have a degree of subjectivity. What you end up with is an infinite chain of tools proving tools in an attempt to reach objectivity.

So what I am saying is that science is built on faith, in the same way religion is built on faith. Each side believes their tools are objective, or at least enough so to adequately support their viewpoint. It is foolish to attempt to "prove" anything as there is always the argument of objectivity.

Quote

To objectively provide evidence you would have use tools and means that exist beyond the physics you are testing, and likewise with chemistry.