tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post2930636256128500335..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Jerry Coyne's Scientific Faith: Is science more rational than religion? Part IIIMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-30341890488509913842010-10-20T01:07:07.680-04:002010-10-20T01:07:07.680-04:00Martin,
As I understand Kuhn's book, its the ...Martin,<br /><br />As I understand Kuhn's book, its the accumulation of anomalous results which ultimately leads to a paradigm shift and a new scientific revolution. Individual humans are of course resistant to change, because they are only human. That's why science doesn't depend on the goodness of men, but rather the repeatability of their observations. Ultimately the evidence KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-7131021661194778442010-10-19T01:03:20.434-04:002010-10-19T01:03:20.434-04:00KyCobb,
This is a great faith statement about sci...KyCobb,<br /><br />This is a great faith statement about science, but the question is whether it is an accurate reflection of how science really happens. You might want to read Thomas Kuhn's <i>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i> for a reality check.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-90071947273044524062010-10-18T00:03:00.933-04:002010-10-18T00:03:00.933-04:00But science isn't based on the faith that the ...But science isn't based on the faith that the future will be like the past, because the future won't be like the past. The universe is constantly evolving,and science is the process by which we develop explanations for the observations we make. The explanations which make accurate predictions of our future observations are theories which we employ as long as they are useful. Scientists KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-6854026168199935452010-10-16T22:48:47.099-04:002010-10-16T22:48:47.099-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Francis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-12983750554594569402010-10-16T22:48:28.880-04:002010-10-16T22:48:28.880-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Francis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-2534837637523294452010-10-16T22:48:12.409-04:002010-10-16T22:48:12.409-04:00Coyne states:
"Science and faith are fundame...Coyne states:<br /><br />"Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth."<br /><br />What category does this claim belong in? It's clearly not science, since it is a claim about science and not of science.Francis Beckwithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03765632359220115150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-29023041147068198862010-10-16T17:48:59.412-04:002010-10-16T17:48:59.412-04:00Martin Cothran said...
I'm trying to comprehen...Martin Cothran said...<br />I'm trying to comprehend the proportionality between Jesus and Jerry Coyne. <br /><br />But I'll tell you what: If Coyne comes to town, is executed, and after three days comes back from the dead, I'll go see him.<br /><br />You will be the one with the nails?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-58772098378173585562010-10-16T15:17:19.073-04:002010-10-16T15:17:19.073-04:00Art,
Congratulations, you get the weekly prize fo...Art,<br /><br />Congratulations, you get the weekly prize for the longest disquisition based on a completely false assumption about what I said. You just barely beat out Singring, and that's quite an accomplishment.<br /><br />You assume that I think that induction is not rational. What I said was that induction is based on a premise that cannot be rationally justified. It does not follow Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-12546771147330876882010-10-16T15:01:38.595-04:002010-10-16T15:01:38.595-04:00I'm trying to comprehend the proportionality b...I'm trying to comprehend the proportionality between Jesus and Jerry Coyne. <br /><br />But I'll tell you what: If Coyne comes to town, is executed, and after three days comes back from the dead, I'll go see him.<br /><br />Promise.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-59469923499144799722010-10-16T13:20:12.985-04:002010-10-16T13:20:12.985-04:00And Coyne was in town giving a lecture earlier thi...And Coyne was in town giving a lecture earlier this week. Martin could have discussed all this with him. If Jesus were in town, I would at least have talked with him and gotten an autographed photo or something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-61251876649781983472010-10-16T11:07:24.522-04:002010-10-16T11:07:24.522-04:00Hmmm….
In the comments to a preceding essay on th...Hmmm….<br /><br />In the comments to a preceding essay on the subject, we’ve learned that logical arguments that deal with reality are, in Martin’s vernacular, not rational, because they rely on a statement that Martin suggests is itself not rational. I am fairly sure that, if Coyne were given the definition of “rational” that we are using here, he would agree with this, and he would furthermoreArthttp:/www.aghunt.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com