I get the feeling we are having a philosophical debate
In a thread about atheists it will become philosophical.
Sounds to me like there is a twinge of regret in that ;)
No, instead of debunking science I have been pointing out that there are logical flaws in science and a good scientific mind will try and explain these flaws. Thus using science as a universal truth to suggest that there is no God is logically flawed.That was my point.
I know that you can think yourself into a black hole like those irritating little boys with pockets full of wire and electrical fuses proving that 1+1=3.
There has to be a basis for doing something, anything, people just dont look at things with a blank mind.
What is "The scientific method" essentially it is whatever you want it to be
"people trying to figure stuff out without the use of religion/superstition."
You can use anything and say anything.
You suggest that all good science is based on rationality and logic.
How do you make a choice between two competing ideas that have access to the same data? It is done by either probability or product both of which entail gathering data, the type and nature of the data gathered depends upon theory, a kind of leap of faith.
i see very little room for philosophy with this subject matter
Philosophers try to tidy up this mess and give a framework to science so that we can tell the difference between science and pseudo science. Blindly accepting one set of ideas over another is no different to having belief. Science is not fact nor is it common sense it's a process and the methodology is defined by philosophy.
the basis of this statement is incorrect. evolution is not a belief, it's a fact../..this tendancy to call various things a "belief" such as evolution stems only from people who refuse to accept it usually due to their religious beliefs.
If evolution is a fact why does it keep changing? Evolution contains a process, there are too many variables for a process to be a fact, saying it is a fact is also saying that it's a truth.
As there are evolutionary truths I believe that the process is probably
Scientists generally don't give a dam for philosophy but to make any claim for the superiority of science over superstition you need philosophy. Any open mind can see that that must be the case.
after he recanted the quote you posted telling us that it can be tested and is predictable.
The predictive ability of Evolution is powerful but nowhere near as powerful as the so called hard sciences. The predictions tend to be very short term, (cosmologists however predict over billions of years). Often the predictions of evolutionists are wrong, where oil will be found for example, or the exceptions to the rules on inheritance, though they have a good hit rate. That doesn't nullify the science it just leads to probability.
The ability to falsify evolutionary theory is also restricted, when it has been challenged the theory changes to fit the new evidence (ad hoc). Thus falsification of evolution relies on degrees of truth and learned experience. We dont know what will happen if a rabbit is found in the precambrian, will there be an ad hoc change or a fundamental re-evaluation to deal with the new discovery?
this tendancy to call various things a "belief" such as evolution stems only from people who refuse to accept it usually due to their religious beliefs.
I accept evolution, am not religious and probably dont believe in God:)
Lots of theories have been falsified in the past but are still in use because they are so powerful.