2 ms·

I'm engaging in dialectic, not rhetoric. I don't believe rhetoric has a place on this site, at least not from me. Since this is a site dedicated to intellectua

by User23 6y ago

I'm engaging in dialectic, not rhetoric. I don't believe rhetoric has a place on this site, at least not from me. Since this is a site dedicated to intellectual curiosity, why don't you please present me with both?

LeoPanthera 6y ago
It is important to note that you did not answer the question.
- User23 6y ago
  Only if you think dialectic can't cope with ambiguity.
lisper 6y ago
> why don't you please present me with both? If you are not a YEC, then the first thing I'm going to do is ask you why you think that cosmology and physics are different? If you are a YEC then I don't need to ask you that question because I already know the answer. (It's because you have accepted the truth of the Bible as a foundational assumption. From this, the idea that modern cosmology is not science is a logically valid conclusion.) Instead, the first thing I'm going to do at this point is to ask you why you are trying to conceal it. Also, if you are a YEC, I would be interested to know if you were surprised that I was able to correctly guess this.
- User23 6y ago
  If I were not a YEC, then I'd think cosmology and physics are different because physics is a laboratory science where depending on our budget we can do anything from roll balls down inclines to produce quarks while with cosmology we have absolutely no control over conditions and can only make believe we do by sampling in a way that necessarily is corrupted by our biases. And the amount of data to sample from is plenty ample for unconscious bias to have a significant effect. If I weren't a YEC, I would focus more on issues with radiocarbon dating and the assumption and not the observation that carbon isotope ratios are constant over the history of the Earth and ignore cosmology entirely. In fact I'm not clear on what YEC has to do with cosmology at all, it strikes me as being outside the scope of the arguments I've seen on the subject.
  - lisper 6y ago
    > physics is a laboratory science That would come as news to most theoretical physicists, who rarely set foot in a laboratory. > we can ... produce quarks How do you know we can produce quarks? Also, where does astronomy fit into your taxonomy? Was Newton doing science or phenomenology when he came up with the inverse square law? Plate tectonics? What about (drum roll, please) biology?
    - User23 6y ago
      > That would come as news to most theoretical physicists, who rarely set foot in a laboratory. I agree that it's fair to describe cosmologists as a species of theoretical physicist, given the long standing connection between the observation of heavily bodies and the birth of the modern physical sciences. Still the relation is rather remote. > How do you know we can produce quarks? I personally don't. I'm relying on hearsay from a buddy with a PhD in particle physics who worked at Los Alamos. I don't think he's a liar so I'll take him at his word about what's possible in particle physics labs. > Also, where does astronomy fit into your taxonomy? Was Newton doing science or phenomenology when he came up with the inverse square law? Plate tectonics? What about (drum roll, please) biology? Astronomy is a phenomenology on account of nobody has a lab big enough to create stars in, or run any other astronomical scale experiments. Newton was doing natural philosophy, which in his case had elements of both what we now call science and phenomenology. Plate tectonics would strictly speaking be a phenomenology. Biology is a bloody wet mess that's mostly phenomenology, but there are disciplines in it which are mature science to the point of being engineering, like breeding domesticated plant and animal species.
      - lisper 6y ago
        > Astronomy is a phenomenology OK, again this would come as a surprise to most astronomers. Are you aware that we have sent spacecraft to other planets, and that humans have walked on the moon?
        User23 6y ago

by User23 6y ago

LeoPanthera 6y ago

It is important to note that you did not answer the question.

User23 6y ago
Only if you think dialectic can't cope with ambiguity.

lisper 6y ago

> why don't you please present me with both? If you are not a YEC, then the first thing I'm going to do is ask you why you think that cosmology and physics are different? If you are a YEC then I don't need to ask you that question because I already know the answer. (It's because you have accepted the truth of the Bible as a foundational assumption. From this, the idea that modern cosmology is not science is a logically valid conclusion.) Instead, the first thing I'm going to do at this point is to ask you why you are trying to conceal it. Also, if you are a YEC, I would be interested to know if you were surprised that I was able to correctly guess this.

User23 6y ago
If I were not a YEC, then I'd think cosmology and physics are different because physics is a laboratory science where depending on our budget we can do anything from roll balls down inclines to produce quarks while with cosmology we have absolutely no control over conditions and can only make believe we do by sampling in a way that necessarily is corrupted by our biases. And the amount of data to sample from is plenty ample for unconscious bias to have a significant effect. If I weren't a YEC, I would focus more on issues with radiocarbon dating and the assumption and not the observation that carbon isotope ratios are constant over the history of the Earth and ignore cosmology entirely. In fact I'm not clear on what YEC has to do with cosmology at all, it strikes me as being outside the scope of the arguments I've seen on the subject.
- lisper 6y ago
  > physics is a laboratory science That would come as news to most theoretical physicists, who rarely set foot in a laboratory. > we can ... produce quarks How do you know we can produce quarks? Also, where does astronomy fit into your taxonomy? Was Newton doing science or phenomenology when he came up with the inverse square law? Plate tectonics? What about (drum roll, please) biology?
  - User23 6y ago
    > That would come as news to most theoretical physicists, who rarely set foot in a laboratory. I agree that it's fair to describe cosmologists as a species of theoretical physicist, given the long standing connection between the observation of heavily bodies and the birth of the modern physical sciences. Still the relation is rather remote. > How do you know we can produce quarks? I personally don't. I'm relying on hearsay from a buddy with a PhD in particle physics who worked at Los Alamos. I don't think he's a liar so I'll take him at his word about what's possible in particle physics labs. > Also, where does astronomy fit into your taxonomy? Was Newton doing science or phenomenology when he came up with the inverse square law? Plate tectonics? What about (drum roll, please) biology? Astronomy is a phenomenology on account of nobody has a lab big enough to create stars in, or run any other astronomical scale experiments. Newton was doing natural philosophy, which in his case had elements of both what we now call science and phenomenology. Plate tectonics would strictly speaking be a phenomenology. Biology is a bloody wet mess that's mostly phenomenology, but there are disciplines in it which are mature science to the point of being engineering, like breeding domesticated plant and animal species.
    - lisper 6y ago
      > Astronomy is a phenomenology OK, again this would come as a surprise to most astronomers. Are you aware that we have sent spacecraft to other planets, and that humans have walked on the moon?
      - User23 6y ago