Sayonara

You are just basically repeating the question I already answered with the "sock drawer organisation" thing. I had thought you were going in another direction, hence the robots, but apparently not. You have to believe things to do science! And when you have done the science, we believe in the things we find out! Well, some of them! So science is a belief system! That's the jist of it, right? Belief does not require adequate support of its main contention. But scientific proof does, and therefore so too does experimental design based on prior work. A key issue here is the difference between knowledge and belief, which is perhaps the central problem in epistemology.

That would be because you are not privy to the staff discussions about the P&R forum which have been going on since FOREVER. Believe me, it is not like we are not trying.

Because we can't agree and nobody wants to moderate it.

Don't you find the idea of anything being explainable somewhat absurd? I can keep this up forever.

Perhaps it would be better if you enquired as to Quartile's actual meaning, instead of pinning highly subjective viewpoints onto his post.

Don't you think that causality is somewhat absurd?

4500 times more powerful than someone without powers is hardly taking us into scary territory.

Anyone who posts about berries and goats in this thread will be cast out the airlock.

I don't see why the idea of "nothing" should be any more or less absurd than the idea of the universe in its current state.

Well, let me put it another way. Suppose we decide that on the whole, humans are too busy for any kind of work, including scientific enquiry. So we formalise the scientific method within the framework of a programming language and palm all the actual work off onto robots, which believe nothing. The process goes on, but no worldview is necessary for that to occur.

The simple way to think of it is that all the space that the universe incorporates came into existence in the bang, and that rather than expanding by adding new space, the universe has expanded because the space itself is expanding.

I would like to point out that despite the quote labels, Fred's post #30 was a reply to me and not to swansont. It's an equivocation because you are synonymising the temporary agreement of one or more scientists to an observed relationship with some arbitrary functionality of what you are labelling "science". Like I said, science is just a method. Although it may have information as an output, which we can believe in according to any definition you please, this does not mean that science itself is a belief system. It does not require belief in order to function. No, I am saying that 'belief within science' is a function of scientists, not a function of science. Yes, but the scientific method is not "people". Depends if you want to take the long view that any given theory can be discarded on the basis of evidence. So what? I believe in the matching blueness of the socks that I took out of my dresser this morning. That does not make my organisation of the top drawer a belief system. Well, maybe in your house it would. Is this supposed to be an implication of faith in science? Because most formulations in such cases start by declaring assumptions. Doesn't mean a thing. Science uses scientific definitions. If you are discussing science, and use the wrong definitions, then you will clearly be innaccurate at best. This borrows from but does not extend the reasoning I have already argued against. I did not feel that you were implying this. But "system of beliefs", as others have mentioned, does imply certain attributes which science simply does not have. I think this is the strongest point you can possibly make, but it only stands where one takes some massive inert library of knowledge to be a feature of "science", and you're the only one in this discussion who appears to do so. There is a problem because you are trying to make all of science a system of belief, whereas when it comes to arguing the case the only bit that you can make a reasonable approach with is that "people believe in things we learned from the application of science". It is true that within society people believe in some or all of a body of information which resulted from scientific enquiry. But this does not make science a belief system. I am not sure if you can really say that it is down to the people involved, rather than convention. We can be as liberal as we like with our definitions but if we don't tighten them up when talking about scientific matters then obviously we will end up being either wrong or misunderstood. I cite this thread's existence as evidence!

In the case of science being a belief system, this is clearly untrue. Science is a methodological system of evalution which may produce information in which one is free to believe. Labelling science a belief system on this basis is a blatant equivocation, whether you see why or not. I am not sure what the "buttons/lights" points were supposed to demonstrate. Buttons turning on lights is a matter of circuitry and power, not the beliefs of an observer. The evidence of the actions of a button can be observed and interpreted without resort to either belief or faith. This is the root of your problem. Your "therefore" is unjustified because you supply a definition of science which suits your argument but which does not in fact accurately describe science. In other words, you are either begging the question or arguing a strawman. Please use the scientific definition for terms included in arguments on this site. On SFN, when we say 'science' we are - by and large - using it for brevity to refer to either (a) the application of the scientific method, or (b) the scientific community. The context usually indicates which. If you are not going to use conventional, universally-accepted scientific definitions, the onus is on you to make this clear from the first inclusion of any such term.

Such a charge would only be brought if the officers in the case had consulted with CPS and agreed that the 'points to prove' could be met with the available evidence. Of course, it is still likely to be thrown out of court, but if the points to prove are met in some way the likelihood of it being thrown out depends on the skill of the legal representatives rather than how ridiculous it seems to an outside observer. I strongly suspect however that in the cases of phonecalls and postal communication, the charges brought against the suspect would not have been assault, but Alarm/Harassment/Distress. I would be interested in hearing the specifics of some postal or telecomms assaults. There is of course the added consideration that a very small number of 'ridiculous' charges are made while chasing targets, such as criminal damage for schoolchildren throwing cream buns at buses, or that little girl who was charged with crim dam for drawing on the pavement with chalk.

When Lockheed stated that science has no opinion on god, what he meant is that there is currently no scientific basis or stance for predicting the existence or non-existence of a god. The personal beliefs of the people exercising the scientific method should methodologically be irrelevant to that outcome. BTW everyone... this thread started badly and has not improved much. It has once or twice veered towards the kind of threads that made us close P&R. If you are not going to add value to the discussion, consider whether or not it is really worth bumping the thread.

Is this homework? If so I am happy to explain the difference between fact and inference to you. After that you will find the exercise (and future exercises/tests based on the same premise) very easy indeed!

Vaporisation of some organic or mineral component of the ground that was helping to maintain its integrity? Good question

Don't you have at least one example of every CPU ever made?

I'm sure Intel want to get plenty of bang for their buck with the Core Duo 2 before they release anything significantly better. They won't even talk about the specifics of the next wave this early on in the CD2 marketing game if they think there is a chance potential customers will hang on to their cash instead of upgrading their architecture twice.

Just a reminder... If you are feeling particularly helpful at any time, there is in the "New Posts" drop-down menu a link that will show you all Unanswered Threads. Good for killing boredom when "new posts" fails to inspire, and catching posts of interest which you may have missed.

Cap'n invented such a device. The evidence of his achievement is recorded on these very forums.

I for one would like a gun that fires hot bricks. I have my reasons.

The fact that Behe continuously fails to notice that the clue is in the name is an endless source of disappointment.

I can corroborate what Edtharan has said; I know many otherwise perfectly knowledgeable and intelligent people who simply do not know the correct terminology. It can be difficult to get your head around that if you regularly ponder or discuss cosmological topics, but for many people it simply doesn't figure in their day-to-day musings.

This thread is going in a very weird direction.