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.

[Star]

This assumption is that the universe behaves lawfully, rationally and uniformly.

As was already addressed in one of the critiques I posted, this isn't an assumption. Rather, it's an observation. We can actually see the entire visible universe. It doesn't matter how far back in distance and time we look, or what direction we look, we see the universe behaving exactly the same way, and haven't once seen otherwise.

[Mr.Badham]

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.

There is no such thing as a spirit. Therefore humans are not spiritual. God is not spiritual, he is imaginary. Humans have imaginations, therefore humans have gods.

Science does not have to understand God, it only has to understand those that believe in gods. That is entirely possible.

[keithprosser3]

If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

Ah, so if people are spiritual as well as physical, we must believe the bible? There's a special term for that form of argument.... remind me what it is again, anyone?

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.

If you leave out the 'God' bits I don't think many scientists would disagree.
Science isn't about understanding our purpose for living. Science will lay bare the mechanism of life, but not the meaning of life.

But what science has done is show that the meaning of life is not grounded in the notion of a god, or gods. I won't recap the arguments that lead to that conclusion or this post will be longer than war and peace, but science has shown us that we are on our own. There isn't a god to reward the good and punish the bad if not on this earth then in the next. If we want justice then we have to be just ourselves, if we want to be spiritual we have to find spirituality within ourselves.

We don't have immortal souls. This life is all we will ever have, and it is this life we should treat as precious, and every other life with it.

But how can man be spiritual when science has swept away the foundations of spirituality? The answer it that the 'foundations' science swept away were were not the foundations at all. We thought human spirituality was founded on some remote and fantastic god, but science has revealed the real foundations of human spirituality was - is, and always will be - within ourselves the whole time.

[Goose]

Nearly every argument you post either is a non-sequitur itself, or contains one or more non-sequiturs.

You say this but can’t seem to actually show my argument is a non-sequitur.

Here's a demonstration of your non-sequitur...

Affirming the consequent is a fallacy when an incorrect conclusion is drawn from evidence, and science draws conclusions from evidence, therefore science is fallacious and always draws incorrect conclusions. Evolution must therefore also be incorrect.

Your logic doesn't follow. Science is much more sophisticated than that.

That isn’t my argument. Here’s my argument.

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 explain how that argument is a non-sequitur.

As I explained, you're over-simplifying the methodologies science uses to test hypotheses and build theories, and you're doing it to the point of completely misunderstanding them. I even linked you up with information, which of course, you disregard.

Telling me I’ve oversimplified things or just don’t understand science doesn’t address the fact I showed, using your logic, the fallacious reasoning behind how some evolutionists try to prove Evolution is true. Again, you don’t seem to have a coherent response to this. Or maybe you don’t know how to respond?

As explained, the scientific method doesn't necessitate fallacy,

Oh yes it does if it attempts to prove anything true. Logically speaking the scientific method can only show a hypothesis false via Modus Tollens. Philosophy of science 101.

nor does science adhere only to the scientific method.

I haven’t argued it does.

Your ignorance of what scientists do for a living doesn't invalidate any of their work.

And your ignorance of the logic behind the very method you apparently believe proves Evolution true is astonishing.

Technology is an applied science. Computers wouldn't even turn on without science. Believe me, code can still run with flawed logic, just not as well. Flawed logic might provide an incorrect answer, or throw an exception, like a new Android app I'm working on. But without science, none of our hardware would even work. The pixels on our monitors wouldn't produce light. The touchscreen on our smartphones wouldn't accept input. We wouldn't even know how to use electricity.

I challenge you to build a functional computer without using logic. Read, set, go…

[Goose]

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.

[keithprosser3]

I think science will survive Mr. Goose having issues with it.

[10CC]

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.

He says via computer and interwebby thingy.

[Goose]

I think science will survive Mr. Goose having issues with it.

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 take it you don't have an issue with that?

[keithprosser3]

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

At least that means Mr. G won't be having anything to do with Intelligent Design or Creationism, so it could be worse.

No, I don't have an issue with it.

One thing is obvious in this thread. This 'affirming the consequent' rubbish was presented in such a way as to place science in the worst possible light.

Science does not use single instances of confirmation to prove nonsensical theories, does it? Scientists are all too aware of the limitiation of 'Proof by confirmation' because it is central to the scientific method. But to read this thread it would seem scientists are all to ready to adopt the most outlandish nonsense on the basis of absurd and faulty leaps of logic.

Is that a reasonable picture of how science works? Is it fair? Is it honest? Is it the picture someone who claims to be sympathetic to science would endorse? Isn't it rather insulting to the hard work of men and women who spend their working lives improving the lot of their fellow man by developing better drugs, better tools, better fabrics, better computers and - most beneficial of all - a better understanding of the world and universe we live in?

[Goose]

No, I don't have an issue with it.

Clearly this is where you and I differ. You don't have an issue with "science" that attempts to prove things true via invalid reasoning whereas I do have an issue with that.

I think we're done here.