or are you one of those people who think that science should be deterministic by definition? if so, you're wrong.
But in a sense, that is what I was trying to say... Alot of people claim that (empirical) science is immune to the bias so often found in religion, because it is deterministic or somehow based purely on fact. I was saying that that isn't necessarily true.
My point was that for empirical science to work practically, you have to make some sort of guess or hypothesis (in the dialectic method, I think it would be called a thesis) and work to prove or disprove it. That process can be just as open to bias from a secular scientist trying to prove a theory as a religious scientist.
I'm no expert on philosophy or the dialectic method, but previously I was referring to emperical science since that seemed to be what the parent was referring to.
Techincally, the Scientific Method requires that you come up with a hypothesis before you can make an experiment. So realistically, you have to have some sort of predisposition or guess, if you will, to create an experiment that can prove something.
Religious people (like myself) tend to believe that there is more to the world than just what you can observe, where the Scientific Method is kind of limited to inferences made by human observation. I think people are often too quick to assume that because science (what is observable) can tell you so much about the world, that it can tell you everything there is to know about the world.
But I won't make this into a religious debate, I just wanted to point out that by your reasoning, secular scientist can be just as bad as "religious" scientists.
Slashdot Mirror
or are you one of those people who think that science should be deterministic by definition? if so, you're wrong.
But in a sense, that is what I was trying to say... Alot of people claim that (empirical) science is immune to the bias so often found in religion, because it is deterministic or somehow based purely on fact. I was saying that that isn't necessarily true. My point was that for empirical science to work practically, you have to make some sort of guess or hypothesis (in the dialectic method, I think it would be called a thesis) and work to prove or disprove it. That process can be just as open to bias from a secular scientist trying to prove a theory as a religious scientist. I'm no expert on philosophy or the dialectic method, but previously I was referring to emperical science since that seemed to be what the parent was referring to.
Techincally, the Scientific Method requires that you come up with a hypothesis before you can make an experiment. So realistically, you have to have some sort of predisposition or guess, if you will, to create an experiment that can prove something.
Religious people (like myself) tend to believe that there is more to the world than just what you can observe, where the Scientific Method is kind of limited to inferences made by human observation. I think people are often too quick to assume that because science (what is observable) can tell you so much about the world, that it can tell you everything there is to know about the world.
But I won't make this into a religious debate, I just wanted to point out that by your reasoning, secular scientist can be just as bad as "religious" scientists.