Grassblade wrote:
>> Don't you know this stuff? Why are you trying to disprove math works, if
>> you don't know how math works?
> Of course I know this stuff. I'm going for a proof ab absurdo.

You missed. "Science is just like religion, therefore..." doesn't work.

> I only note that
> biblical studies use the same procedure. Given the premise(s) everything is
> derived logically.

I'll disagree. Either that, or the premises you have to assume are so 
broad and otherwise unsupported that they're contrary to evidence.

> Saying that you can't use (some parts of) the Bible to prove
> (other parts of) the Bible is just as ungrounded as the above statements.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, if you assume that *this* part of the 
Bible is true, then *that* part logically follows, sure.

That's not very useful, tho. Why should I assume those premises actually 
match reality? Why shouldn't I assume the Mayan premises are just as valid?

> Let's see: peer review consists of two words. You claim to have reviewed papers.
> Did you ever receive more than a pat on the back and a thank you, or even that?

Yeah. I received a PhD. Some free trips to Spain, too, actually.

> Because, I, sure as heck, haven't. In another context that would be called
> slavery. And slaves are peer only to other slaves.

Playing with linguistics is beneath the level that this conversation has 
been kept at. "Because you don't get paid to do peer reviews, they're 
not valuable."

> However I maintain that refereeing is not the whole peer review process. When an
> important paper is published, each and everybody who is somebody in that field
> will form an informed opinion, and the majority will get its way. You don't
> want to call it peer review, despite it being quite literally what happens?

Yes. I'm not following, tho. Note that in science, "peer review" isn't 
just peers looking at your paper and deciding if they like it. It's 
peers *reproducing your experiments* and deciding if they get the same 
answers.

It isn't popularity. You could be the most popular person out there, and 
your experiments could be wrong.

>> Another one of those possibly-true logical systems (popularity -> truth)
>> that turns out not to work scientifically. That's why it's called
>> "Doctor of Philosophy", you see. Think about it.
> See above.

OK, so you don't understand the process.

>> And it's *still* the case that lack of science doesn't prove your God is
>> right.
> I am not attacking Science. Nor am I out to making such nonsense as disproving
> it. Science is IMO the greatest invention humanity ever made.

Then why are you trying to equate the popularity of a religion with peer 
reviewed science?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message