Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[JohnA]

So, which branches of science do you have issue with, and why?

I have an issue with any branch that attempts to prove a theory true via fallacious reasoning.

I would also have concern if a branch of science does this.

But you have not answered my question Goose. I asked you:

Which branches of science do you have issue with, and why?
I'm interested in the headlines and the details.

If you can not answer, then your whole argument falls flat, like a deck of unsupported cards.


What is more concerning is that you are not being truthful to your posts.
Here you wrote: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 299#607299

I've shown here that the scientific method employs fallacious reasoning when if attempts to prove something

But then you say: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/t ... nipost.gif

Science is limited to more than that which exists. It's limited, as you've stated, because it formally can't prove anything. But do you know why the scientific method cannot prove anything?

It can’t prove anything because it fundamentally relies upon the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

And here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 274#607274

I don't have an issue with science. I love science. Science is cool. I have issues with "science" that attempts to prove things via invalid reasoning.

You do know that the scientific method is part of science, not only a few (yet to be named) branches of science.

Goose,
I want you to be clear now. Is you issue with science (of which the scientific method is the method used by scientists), or with a branch of science (that apparently uses this faulty scientific method)?

I am hoping you can answer this, and not get stuck like Winepusher that argues in circles and contradict how own beliefs.

Again here is my questions:
Is you issue with science (of which the scientific method is the method used by scientists), or with a branch of science (that apparently uses this same 'faulty as you claim' scientific method)?
If a Branch of science then Which branches of science do you have issue with, and why - remember they all use the same scientific method?

Be clear, or run like you did refusing to answer my questions after I exposed your faulty reasoning.

[Star]

Goose definitely contradicts himself. Maybe if he had done his homework first, this wouldn't have happened.

He says science doesn't prove (which is correct), then argues that science actively commits fallacies because it proves. Which is it?

If science doesn't prove, then how can it be guilty of this fallacy? He can't have it both ways.

Then we have WinePusher, who clearly misunderstands the difference between proof and evidence. In science, evidence isn't proof, but he assumes because its not, it can't be considered evidence, and if it's not evidence, it must be faith.

These ridiculous arguments are mindnumbing.

[JohnA]

Yep.

These people have faulty reason filters. They run when being exposed. What baffles me is that they realize it, but somehow do not correct it. They merely find some justification to continue. This is a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

[Goose]

But you have not answered my question Goose. I asked you:

Which branches of science do you have issue with, and why?
I'm interested in the headlines and the details.

I did answer you. That I didn't answer you exactly the way you wanted me to is irrelevant. Are you going to stalk me again until I do? Then claim victory when I don't?

If you can not answer, then your whole argument falls flat, like a deck of unsupported cards.

Why? Why does my argument fail? Because you say it does? Is this just something you assert to make it look like you've refuted an argument without having to actually refute it? Here's my argument which I made in this post.

If the scientific method employs the fallacy of affirming the consequent then the scientific method is limited in that it cannot prove anything true.

Please tell the class how my argument fails if I don't answer your question the way you want me to.

This should be entertaining at least.

What is more concerning is that you are not being truthful to your posts.
Here you wrote: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 299#607299

I've shown here that the scientific method employs fallacious reasoning when if attempts to prove something

But then you say: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/t ... nipost.gif

Science is limited to more than that which exists. It's limited, as you've stated, because it formally can't prove anything. But do you know why the scientific method cannot prove anything?

It can’t prove anything because it fundamentally relies upon the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

And here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 274#607274

I don't have an issue with science. I love science. Science is cool. I have issues with "science" that attempts to prove things via invalid reasoning.

I've been truthful and consistent. That you can't see that is irrelevant.

[Goose]

Goose definitely contradicts himself.

You say stuff like this. Just like how you said I commit non-sequiturs galore. But you can't seem to actually show where I have.

[WinePusher]

Surely you are not accusing me of being dishonest?

You make up stuff because you are losing the debate, and you put words in my mouth and try to make it seem as if I said something when I actually didn't.

Am glad you agree that the link that you provided was wrong then.

You provided a link from Philosophy of Science. That is now another error on your part that you admitted to.

That is interesting. Am glad you agree.

Thank you for admitting that your reject your link.

I never admitted or said ANY of those things. I can see you're relatively new here, so I suggest you stop making up stuff if you ever want to be taken seriously on this forum.

I can not understand why you are now calling me dishonest. A working reason filter would tell you that your accusation can be defined as a form of slander.

You personally attack me by saying my 'reason filter isn't working' so you have no right to whine about slander. And your entire post is just a huge rant that doesn't even address the topic at all, along with that it is poorly written and I can't understand parts of it. You also keep making stuff up and saying things that are blatantly untrue.

[Star]

Goose definitely contradicts himself.

You say stuff like this. Just like how you said I commit non-sequiturs galore. But you can't seem to actually show where I have.

I have a few times. In fact, you deliberately edited out my latest explanation in the post you quoted.

Science doesn't prove, by your own admission, therefore no fallacy is committed.

Another thing you need to consider, a fallacy isn't necessarily wrong. The problem is when they're used as proof, or as a sole piece of evidence. Science doesn't do this, either. Theories are built from a wide-range of methodologies, and aren't just a one-time pass through three-step process to evaluate only one piece of evidence as proof, as you've suggested.

This is all just a silly technicality, anyway. Science can't prove gravity exists either, but we all know it does.

[Star]

You make up stuff because you are losing the debate, and you put words in my mouth and try to make it seem as if I said something when I actually didn't.

Whether there's even a debate here is debatable.

At this point I feel like we're just correcting your misconceptions, providing evidence you should have already known (eg. Hubble images), and arguing over semantics. There's nothing much left to say.

[JohnA]

But you have not answered my question Goose. I asked you:

Which branches of science do you have issue with, and why?
I'm interested in the headlines and the details.

I did answer you. That I didn't answer you exactly the way you wanted me to is irrelevant. Are you going to stalk me again until I do? Then claim victory when I don't?

If you can not answer, then your whole argument falls flat, like a deck of unsupported cards.

Why? Why does my argument fail? Because you say it does? Is this just something you assert to make it look like you've refuted an argument without having to actually refute it? Here's my argument which I made in this post.

If the scientific method employs the fallacy of affirming the consequent then the scientific method is limited in that it cannot prove anything true.

Please tell the class how my argument fails if I don't answer your question the way you want me to.

This should be entertaining at least.

What is more concerning is that you are not being truthful to your posts.
Here you wrote: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 299#607299

I've shown here that the scientific method employs fallacious reasoning when if attempts to prove something

But then you say: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/t ... nipost.gif

Science is limited to more than that which exists. It's limited, as you've stated, because it formally can't prove anything. But do you know why the scientific method cannot prove anything?

It can’t prove anything because it fundamentally relies upon the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

And here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 274#607274

I don't have an issue with science. I love science. Science is cool. I have issues with "science" that attempts to prove things via invalid reasoning.

I've been truthful and consistent. That you can't see that is irrelevant.

Correct, you did answer, but you did not answer my question. You merely answered a fictitious question grounded in wishful thinking. To say your answer was not exactly the way I wanted you to answer is very relevant.
If you claim X is fallacious, then surely need to say what X is? Why is this so hard for you Goose?

Failing to answer my question means that you have no argument because [the WHY] you have not lived up to your burden of proof. Surely you understand this Goose? Or are you new to debate?

If the scientific method employs the fallacy of affirming the consequent then the scientific method is limited in that it cannot prove anything true.

But the scientific method does not set out to prove or disprove anything! And you admitted it! So you whole argument falls flat, like a deck of cards!
You did author this, remember:

Science is limited to more than that which exists. It's limited, as you've stated, because it formally can't prove anything

I've been truthful and consistent. That you can't see that is irrelevant.

Then why do you refuse to answer my questions? And yes, it is relevant that I see that you answer my questions! If it was not relevant, then how can you claim to be truthful and consistent?

Again here are my questions:
Is you issue with science (of which the scientific method is the method used by scientists), or with a branch of science (that apparently uses this same 'faulty as you claim' scientific method)?
If a Branch of science then Which branches of science do you have issue with, and why - remember they all use the same scientific method?

Be clear, or run like you did refusing to answer my questions after I exposed your faulty reasoning.

[WinePusher]

Surely you understand this Goose? Or are you new to debate?

Goose has been on this forum since 2006 (or 2007) and if I remember correctly he had accumulated around 1500 posts, I've been on this forum since 2010 and have accumulated over 3000 posts. Both Goose and I are not new to this debate forum UNLIKE YOU and we do not have to resort to making up stuff and insulting our opponents 'reasoning skills' UNLIKE YOU.