I usually dont review pages I disagree with

Published November 12th, 2006 by Bobby Henderson

I usually don’t review pages I disagree with, but I’ve stumbled this page a few times now… If methodological naturalism is to be used unwaveringly in science (which has not always been the case), then it renders the discipline potentially impotent to answer fundamental questions that it might otherwise provide insight on. Acknowledging that there are certain situations in which data may be interpreted in ways that at least suggest alternatives to ontological naturalism seems like the kind of thing that might increase interest in science. Specific ID models (if they’re to be presented at all) must only be considered based on their merits with respect to the data and their explanatory power (thus excluding young-earth creationism and FSM).


163 Responses to “I usually dont review pages I disagree with”

1 2 3 21
  1. henderob says:

    I have no idea what that guy said.

  2. TrueBeliever says:

    neither do i

  3. Lee Bruns says:

    As with most of the folks who send “hate mail or concerned criticisms” the poster was unable to catch the satire.

  4. Eric says:

    Basically the person said give science a chance, and don’t jump to supernatural reasoning, at least I’m pretty sure that’s what they said. Then again, they don’t seem to be able to grasp simple satire, so they could really just be retarded. Either one, i guess…

  5. One Eyed Jack says:

    Actually, it’s rather simple.
    The top down parallel design of the scientific interpretation of current trends in a priori phenomenon in transition, necessitates a preexisting forced value interpretation of the ad hoc conglomerate of fractal recombinations of the primary hypothesis.
    I hope that helped.

  6. FTW!!! says:

    Thanks Jack, that cleared things up a bit. May your dish and stomach always be filled with pasta.

  7. Jacurutu says:

    No, he didn’t miss the satire of the site. However, he missed the argument. Science at this point cannot answer the most fundamental questions of the universe — why are we here, where did we come from (as in how did the universe itself come into being), etc. What he missed is the fact that these questions are not supposed to be answered in science; they are better reserved for a discussion on personal philosophy. With the absence of data, you cannot call something science; it lacks objective assessment and entirely relies on the subjective.

  8. moochie says:

    Okies .. here’s my attempt at translation. “If science only ever considers rational and empirically testable explanations for every phenomenon encountered, then there may be some questions it can never answer. Also, by being so stubborn about rejecting even the possibility of ‘supernatural’ explanations, science may be alienating whole groups of people who would otherwise take more interest in science. Intelligent Designer theories should only be considered when they help to explain the otherwise unexplainable, so the 6000 year-old earth creationist theory and (gasp!) the FSM should never be considered.”
    Maybe the language zxczxcv uses is somewhat otiose, but his/her points are sensible. Take subjects like ghosts, telepathy, UFOs, predictive dreams and the Yeti. They may, certainly, all have perfectly rational and purely scientific explanations (to prove their existence, or non-existence). But at this moment in time the jury is still out. Science says that none of the above exist and, like it or not, works from this assumption. What zxczxcv is suggesting, I think, is that this is not the open-minded approach we claim science has.
    I must admit there are a few areas of science where, perhaps, a more open-minded approach might bring dividends. For instance, some of the weird stuff that goes on in the quantum mechanical world is troublesome when approached from a purely rational direction. Einstein’s famous ‘Spooky action at a distance’, for example .. sub-atomic particles that can ‘communicate’ faster than the speed of light. Or apparent wave/particle duality. Science can predict, via probability, how experiments will turn out .. but can’t produce a ready explanation as to ‘how’.
    The two questions that have always troubled me most are ‘What happened before the Big Bang?’ and ‘Is there an edge or a centre of the universe?’ Science says that the first question is meaningless .. there was no Time before the Big Bang and, anyway, we can’t ever know (even theoretically) what was going on (if anything). To the second question, science says there simply is no boundary or edge to the universe (even though it is finite and had a definite beginning in time), and that there is no centre because there is no boundary/edge and every galaxy (on average) is moving away from each other through expansion of the universe. Maybe I just haven’t read the right ‘explanation’ that will make these answers ‘click’ for me, or maybe I just can’t make the mental leap. Or maybe this has nothing to do with the original subject and I’m meandering off topic.
    Anyway, henderob was very naughty to type zxczxcv’s first line, as the title of the post, with lower case I’s and no apostrophe in ‘don’t’. No grog for him today.

1 2 3 21

Leave a Reply