Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Who invented science?
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Google
Anarchy Praxis
I stumbled into the evolution/creation thread and apparently no one is interested in discussing science or religion in there. I dont think I'll get any argument that science is a human invention, even though it is worshiped and served like a pagan god. Science is about tools, its first and foremost a philosophy, originally it was called natural philosophy. The term 'science' is a word that simply means 'to know', there are two kinds of knowledge. The kind you know intellectually (theory) and the kind you experience (practice). Science is the kind you experience. Scientific theory is just establish facts organized systematicly. Eventually these theories can be so well establiched that they are called laws, like gravity.

Mechanical aid

Francis Bacon developed the inductive approach to science as a systematic philosophy. Discrepancies in our perception of the world of sense have to be addressed using inductive reasoning. He believed that “Our only remaining hope and salvation is to begin the whole labour of the mind again; not leaving it to itself, but directing it perpetually from the very first, and attaining our end as it were by mechanical aid. (Francis Bacon,1620). Science is about understanding controling the natural world. People are grossly ignorant about what science really is. If it can't be confirmed or denied by an experiment people think that means its not true. I'm constantly being attacked for saying that there is obvious, clear, and distinct proof for God's existance. Not only that God's divine nature has been revealed to everyone, its called natural revelation. At this point people start demanding empirical evidence like I'm supposed to come up with an experiment to prove it. There is no such thing as science, it is itself an intangable like numbers or time. Natural science on the other hand is what we learn about in school

Scientific evidence

Bacon developed the philosophy of natural science but it was Newton who actually established it. He did a lot of experiments with prisms. He wanted to prove that light was actually made up of seven colors. at that time it was belived that the colors from a prism were from the prism. Newton proved that anyone who did this experiment exactly like he did would get the exact same result and natural science was born. If thousands of years for now natural science has a Genesis account of its creation, Newton would be the first Adam.

“If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory.” (White, the Last Sorcerer)


Every time I post a new thread people demand that I clarify a question for debate so here goes. Who gets the credit for the invention of science? Anyone has an alternative view like science was always there waiting to be discovered, jump right in the waters fine. I personally think that the way empirical science is dogmaticly forced on children is perverse. This is exactly what the Catholic church did in the name of religion. Natural science is fine if naturalistic assumptions dont blind you to other truth. Like religion it has to know its place.

smile.gif
Google
quarkhead
QUOTE
I'm constantly being attacked for saying that there is obvious, clear, and distinct proof for God's existance. Not only that God's divine nature has been revealed to everyone, its called natural revelation. At this point people start demanding empirical evidence like I'm supposed to come up with an experiment to prove it.


I see what you're saying, but... you are describing your "proof" as basically no different than someone who is mentally ill and sees things or hears voices. Those things are "true" for that person, but that has little bearing on their "truth" in a wider sense.

QUOTE
Who gets the credit for the invention of science? Anyone has an alternative view like science was always there waiting to be discovered, jump right in the waters fine.


Science is the study of that which has been, for all practical purposes, always there. No one person could possibly get the credit. It has been existing and evolving right along with human society. The only thing that has really changed over the centuries is the quality and precision of our measuring devices.

Empirical science is important because we have ways of observing phenomenae upon which we can all agree. Experiential knowledge can be personally important, but it is always being formed and reformed by our psychological and societal paradigms. It's fairly obvious, but what you describe as clear (experiential) proof of god's existence is only "clear" due to your particular "lens" through which you are seeing. It stands to reason that a Bantu tribesman, viewing the same firmament, would not ascribe it all, out of the blue, to Yahweh.

So who invented science? Maybe it was Al Gore! biggrin.gif
Abs like Jesus
Our question for debate...
"Who gets the credit for the invention of science?"

Preceded by:
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003 @ 01:23 PM)
There is no such thing as science, it is itself an intangable like numbers or time.

Kind of defeats the purpose of the question, doesn't it?


Edited to add below:
Nobody invented science as it is not an invention or even a tool in and of itself. Science is an extension of philosophy, an attempt to understand the world around us as it truly is, rather than as it truly appears. For centuries people pondered and expressed ideas. Like people looking at a building from opposite sides, though, people realized that while looking at the same object, it was possible to see different things while still seeing the truth. Science is a way in which to peel through the layers of illusion and find out what truths are there for everybody and everything (like the laws of physics).

In addition to your question...
While you and presumably others may view teaching empirical science as perverse, Anarchy, to not teach science and rely solely on personal experience is to leave us in no better shape than the characters in Plato's allegory of the cave.

Things are not always as they appear, our senses and experiences can deceive us. While it may be easier, and in some cases more comforting, to accept things as they appear to be, science seeks to go further. Science is the pursuit of truth rather than the creation of it. While philosophy and theology have their benefits -- and I enjoy them both -- they are also quite prone to error, hence their giving way (however reluctantly) to science over the course of time.
Anarchy Praxis
Here we go again, for whatever reason no one is interested in science. All I get are personal attacks. The truth is there was no such thing as natural science as we know it before the Scientific revolution. Science was anything that could be 'known' this included everything, even religion. I'm informed now that science always existed. You mean its eternal like God? It is certainly praised and worship like it is.

Natural science was created by philosophers and scientists who were very specific about what they wanted to accomplish. It is limited to the natural world by design. They did this to keep them seperated not to rationalize God into non existance.The atheistic naturalistic assumptions that are so popular these days didn't materialize untill the mid-nineteenth century. This kind of reasoning was the impetus for the Nazi ideals based on the rants Niezche as was the Nillism of the Soviet Union.

Anyone who thinks science was allways there is like people who hear voices or sees things that are not there. Its delusional, thats why it has to be preached so passionately. People might seriously think about it, if it wasn't.

I consider the first two replies to be off topic and irrelavant to who invented science. I'll get into the epistomology of God's existance when I find someone interested in apologetics. Till then I stand by my previous statement and the birthdate of the greatest pagan idol of the modern world. Praise experimentum meticulas!
Hugo
I believe it was a homo habilis who observed the harder you threw a rock the bigger dent it made in an animal's, or human's skull. In southern France you can find an ancient inscription in a cave which reads "F=1/2MV2"
Jaime
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003, 03:43 PM)
Here we go again, for whatever reason no one is interested in science. All I get are personal attacks.

If you honestly feel you are being personally attacked, report the post and explain how. Otherwise it appears you are crying wolf in order to dismiss the posted answers to your question. sad.gif

I suppose I'll take a stab at this one, although I'll preface this with saying I'm no expert on anything related to science and technology.

In high school, I took a class called the History of Science and Technology. We were never taught that there is an "inventor" of science. There was no one even nicknamed "the father" or "grandfather" of science. The lessons did not begin at the Scientific Revolution.

In fact, that lesson didn't come until a few weeks into the class. We started back as far as we could find actual historical writings, for that in itself is a science. We briefly examined things like the Code of Hammurabi in order to show that humans were interested in keeping written records governing the world around them. We could not have "science" as we know if we did not at least start by writing events down.

The class then moved on examining the mathematicians of the Greek and Roman ages. We also learned how parts of the Middle East and the Asian world maintained records of inventions, theories and equations during the Dark Ages of Europe.

Only then was it that we moved into the Scientific Revolution. I'm not sure how you can say natural science did not exist before that period. I realize my example is anecdotal, but I'm not sure how else to counter an argument that says that human curiosity about the world that was undertaken in a systematic manner prior to the Scientific Revolution did not exist and those who fail to realize that science is the "greatest pagan idol of the modern world" are "like people who hear voices or sees things that are not there."

Perhaps I am failing to understand your point but it appears you think that the world cannot co-exist peacefully with people who believe in god and those who "believe" in science. I'm sure it will come as no suprise that Einstein wrote on this issue more articulately than me. Please let me know if this article helps further this debate: Science and Religion: Irreconcilable?
Anarchy Praxis
The alegory of the Cave in Plato's republic was the only way he could define, 'the good'. He had defined philosophy, wisdom, the philosopher ruler but when asked to define his central term, he insisted that it was virtually impossible. Basicly he described shadows on the wall of a cave being thought to be reality. They were in reality, human inventions, scholars have often speculated on what he had in mind. I like the one that called it, 'the common market that inslaves us all' or maybe its just the systems of thought that are marketed there. This is what is being forced on us with empirical science, mentally children are being shackled in the experimentum crucis cave. They are brainwashed into believing that these tools of human cognition are the only true reality. Evolution, like biology are just tools. All of natural science is based on experimentation, there is nothing else.

The Idols of Science

’ Bacon believed that obstacles appear in the sources of knowledge. He makes a distinction between the various idols (representations) of cognition. “For it is a false assertion that the sense of man is the measure of things…because the individual man…refracts and discolors the light of nature”. We also have outside influences. “By the intercourse and association…in commerce…because…ill and unchoice words obstructs the understanding” Finally we have to critically discern systems of thought “dogmas of philosophy and wrong laws of demonstration, not only entire systems but many principles of science”. (F. Bacon 1620). This is how you sort through the particulars to find the principles empirically.)

Critically discern systems of thought, dogmas of philosophy, not only systems but principles. Its called the law of immutability and if science was not invented we would have no right to change it.
Ultimatejoe
QUOTE
All I get are personal attacks.


You really need to stop disparaging the other posters here, and the sooner the better.

QUOTE
The truth is there was no such thing as natural science as we know it before the Scientific revolution.


Really? There are quite a few Greeks who would probably disagree with you. Now I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that you have a different understanding of what science is than the other posters here. Now since YOU refuse to offer your own definition, and utterly reject definitions that have been offered elsewhere, this debate is becoming extremely tiresome. Why don't you provide your own definition of science so we can proceed more constructively?
Anarchy Praxis
Jamie found this really interesting for science. "As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Albert Einstein. I'd say he qualifys as an authority on science. My only problem with it is that he is describing reason, not science. The inductive approach is thinking with half your brain tied behind your back. In empirical science the is no deductive reasoning, and the people who invented it did this on purpose.
Abs like Jesus
The only thing even resembling personal attacks that I see here are from you against science, Anarchy. I'm at a loss how given the discussion of science you've concluded none of us are interested in science.

Science is the laws of physics, biology, genetics, geology, zoology, anatomy, chemistry, geometry and the list goes on and on... nobody invented these things. As hugo briefly touched on (in his own way) and Jaime was kind enough to elaborate, science arose from human curiosity about how the world worked rather than how it appeared. It has existed in rudimentary and advancing forms throughout the course of human history, not simply with perhaps one man, and certainly not only a few centuries ago.
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003 @ 03:43 PM)
The truth is there was no such thing as natural science as we know it before the Scientific revolution. Science was anything that could be 'known' this included everything, even religion.

Actually, the truth is that people just hadn't discovered much, largely in part because they hadn't developed advanced methods of observation and experimentation. These are the things that were invented, not science itself. And most of those things you say could be "known" were not known but rather believed. Deeper investigation dispelled many of those beliefs to reveal what could be shown as truth.
Google
Anarchy Praxis
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Jun 22 2003, 08:48 PM)
The only thing even resembling personal attacks that I see here are from you against science, Anarchy. I'm at a loss how given the discussion of science you've concluded none of us are interested in science.

Science is the laws of physics, biology, genetics, geology, zoology, anatomy, chemistry, geometry and the list goes on and on... nobody invented these things. As hugo briefly touched on (in his own way) and Jaime was kind enough to elaborate, science arose from human curiosity about how the world worked rather than how it appeared. It has existed in rudimentary and advancing forms throughout the course of human history, not simply with perhaps one man, and certainly not only a few centuries ago.
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003 @  03:43 PM)
The truth is there was no such thing as natural science as we know it before the Scientific revolution. Science was anything that could be 'known' this included everything, even religion.

Actually, the truth is that people just hadn't discovered much, largely in part because they hadn't developed advanced methods of observation and experimentation. These are the things that were invented, not science itself. And most of those things you say could be "known" were not known but rather believed. Deeper investigation dispelled many of those beliefs to reveal what could be shown as truth.

No one invented trees, rocks bugs or people, but biology, geology, and anatomy are human inventions. They are idol (representations) that exist only in your mind
Ultimatejoe
QUOTE
The inductive approach is thinking with half your brain tied behind your back. In empirical science the is no deductive reasoning, and the people who invented it did this on purpose.


Did you miss science class in high school? Because all of those experiments you ran were excercises in INDUCTION and DEDUCTION. You arrive at a hypothesis through deduction, and you induce a conclusion from your observations.
moif
QUOTE
F=1/2MV2


laugh.gif This is the funniest thing I've read all day...

Who invented Science?

Was Science invented? I would have thought that the urge to know and explore is a natural extension of imagination. Ever since the first ape fell out of the tree and started exploring outside his/ her own environment, we have been pushing the envolope.

That ape 'invented' Science I guess....


editted for spelling
Abs like Jesus
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003 @ 05:08 PM)
No one invented trees, rocks bugs or people, but biology, geology, and anatomy are human inventions. They are idol (representations) that exist only in your mind

Not to interrupt your brilliance on the subject, but trees, rocks and bugs are respectively biology, geology and back to biology.


Edited to add: We may have given each study a name and class, but we by no means invented the science behind it. Biology is our study of life, geology the study of the earth... we invented neither but rather study them. This study has taken various forms throughout the course of history but no one person invented it. The science of biology, geology and all the others I have previously listed and left out have always existed. Science is simply the study and understanding of them.
Anarchy Praxis
So let me see if I'm getting this, science is anything that can be 'known' with certainty? I'm not asking for a difinition that walks on all fours. I'm just wondering why the Bible is not considered scientific while Ecliudes Elements is. It has something to do with 'scientific' proof does it not?
Abs like Jesus
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003 @ 05:33 PM)
I'm just wondering why the Bible is not considered scientific while Ecliudes Elements is. It has something to do with 'scientific' proof does it not?

Perhaps you should have started a topic on that then. As it stands, what you gave us was
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003 @ 01:23 PM)
Every time I post a new thread people demand that I clarify a question for debate so here goes. Who gets the credit for the invention of science? Anyone has an alternative view like science was always there waiting to be discovered, jump right in the waters fine. I personally think that the way empirical science is dogmaticly forced on children is perverse. This is exactly what the Catholic church did in the name of religion. Natural science is fine if naturalistic assumptions dont blind you to other truth. Like religion it has to know its place.
AuthorMusician
I'll go with no one person or conspiracy invented science. Aristotle gets the cake for kicking off the philosophical inquiry that would eventually lead to the scientific method referred to here as inductive thinking. But to stress that science is only this one method of thinking is to narrow the definition needlessly.

That is, unless the argument is really about the validity of scriptual texts being equal to that of scientific texts.

Okay, so what constitutes validity? Are scientific texts infallible? No, and nobody promotes that view unless a great deal of politics is involved. I will admit that scientists are merely human and are therefore subject to human weaknesses.

Are scriptual texts infallible? Hehehe, no, and nobody promotes that view unless a great deal of politics is involved. I will admit that theologians are merely human and are therefore subject to human weaknesses.

So, if the underlying premise is that both the scientific and theological communities have their bull-headed absolutists, yep, they do. I just think that this type thrives in theology and tends to be discredited in science.
Abs like Jesus
I've started a new topic regarding the Bible as a book of historical or scientific merit...
Bible or babble

Any other religious digressions about why the Bible isn't accepted scientifically can be directed there. smile.gif
Anarchy Praxis
Natural science before the 1600s was the same as theology, they saw no differences in the two forms of knowledge. When Galileo made discoveries useing his telescope the Catholic church said that it couldn't possibly be true because it contradicted Scripture. He said that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, it doesnt tell you how the heavens work. The Catholic church did not accept Galileo's work untlil about 10 years ago. You have to admit, there is a profound difference of opinion here.

People began to think that science and religion should be keep seperated as indepent disciplines. The idea of seperation of church and state is more or less the same idea. Now lets just assume for a minute that the reasoning on both sides of the debate is flawless, even though one of them is wrong. What is the difference that makes them diametrically opposed to one another?

One side is reasoning deductivly from religios conviction, the other is reasoning inductivly from experiential data. In other words one is reasoning from the inside out, and the other is reasoning from external sources to internal conviction i.e. scientific theory. Both were understood during the enlightningment to be valid ways of acquiring knowledge. The idea that scientic knowledge could not be attained through religious conviction was radically dangerous. It got a number of very accomplished scientists thrown in jail. Modern scientific method was developed and now it is misunderstood to be synanamous with reason the way religion was thought to be in the Middle Ages. Thats what I meant by it being perverse, its not natural for science to be the primary source of truth.

I admit that most of what I know about epistomology (theory of knowledge) is based on Christian apologetics. I keep going back to the Bible because its the reversal of natural science i.e. supernatural revelation. That's why religion excluded form the schools, its uniquely you point of view that defines it. In science its demonstrateable or observable facts that are the heart of the emphasis.

Aristotle did not like experimentation and the anchient Greeks were not really interested in controling nature. Aristotle's science could be just as readily used as a basis for theology and was by the Catholic church. In Aristotle’s logic our thinking must be theoretical as well as practical in order to ‘know’ anything with certainty. R.W Ross describes this parody and progression “From what sort of proposition he should demand proof (singular) and what sort of proofs should be demanded” (plural). Someone had mentioned Aristotle so I wanted to clarify why I didn't think he had invented it. Scientific method applied to everything that could be reasoned, not just nature. The passion of the Greeks was reason and things like natural science and physics were applications philosophy not sources.
Abs like Jesus
What you seem to be arguing, Anarchy, is what methods and tools of science were invented by whom and when, not by whom or when science itself was "invented." I would maintain that it wasn't invented and that there is no single person or time for us to give credit for what might only be described as the birth of science.
Hugo
Much of science consists of hypothesis that can be tested. For centuries it was held that the Earth was the center of the universe primarily based on religious superstition. Copernicus led the change to a new theory that the Earth and the other planets revolved around the sun. Copernicus used observations and other scientific knowledge to confirm his theories.

Science has also disproved the flat earth theory and the 6ooo year old Earth theory to all but the greatest of fools. Evolution too is a fact which is undisputed by those not in the grips of superstition.
Anarchy Praxis
So theres science out in the middle of nowhere giving rise to everything in the universe. Its typical that someone would call someone else a fool because they believe the Bible. When Copernicus first proposed the heliocentric model, Luther called him a fool for contradicted the Bible and the cleric party line of his day. The clerics of our day aren't in churches any more, their in universities. The more things change the more they stay the same, the truth is held hostage by clerics with political agendas. The fact that they are secular clerics is all that has really changed.
Hugo
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003, 08:29 PM)
Its typical that someone would call someone else a fool because they believe the Bible.

I did not say people who believed in the Bible were fools, just the ones who interpret the Bible as proof the Earth is flat and/or 6000 years old. At one time these beliefs could have been labeled popular delusions, now they are limited to a small segment of fools.

The difference between secular scientists and clergy is obvious. Scientists investigate, experiment and constantly revise their theories, clergy does not.
Anarchy Praxis
For one thing no educated person ever argued that the earth was flat. As far as the young earth theory, the heliocentric theory was thought to be equally foolish at one time. That didnt make it wrong. The Bible says nothing along those lines. The Bible does not give a timeline for the creation of the earth, thats a myth, there is no linear chronology it simply records bloodlines.
Science is belived to produce knowledge through experimentation and that alone is valid truth. The hypothesis must be validated empirically, this is a human invention. Its origins are historically verifiable unlike the myth of modern science that it has always existed. The priesthood of experimentum crucis can dogmatically preach the gospel of natural assumptions it changes nothing. Reality exists substanatively apart from experience for everyone except the empirical pagan fellowship if secular priests. All praise experimentum crucis! It alone is truth!
Abs like Jesus
Quick clarification/trivia:
Actually, Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric universe almost 2,000 years before Copernicus, but without the benefit of printing presses, and the simultaneous boom in abstract reasoning, his theory was lost for ages...


That aside, what do the last few posts have to do with who invented science? If anybody wants to discuss science as compared or contrasted with religion, they should start a separate thread for exactly that.

The topic for debate HERE is:
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003 @ 01:23 PM)
Who gets the credit for the invention of science?

Arguing about the bible is off topic. I've already started a new topic for it, as well as provided a link. Broad arguments about science being equivalent to religion or not are off topic and should also be taken up in a new thread. Considering the question for debate, I can't see why religion should come up at all. Let's all stick to the topic at hand. smile.gif
Dingo
Who gets credit for the invention of science? You might as well ask who gets credit for the invention of thinking? Science is careful observation leading to logical conclusions that can be tested and from which future predictions can be made. Any good Chimpanzee could tell you that or at least understands it intuitively.

The scientific method.

An ordered approach

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.


Additional materials on science from the same source.

Science Notes

In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was ``the Truth''.

During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton's theory, these observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory is ``the Truth''.

So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn't. The Universe is still the same as it ever was. When a theory is said to be ``true'' it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence. But even the best of theories have, time and again, been shown to be incomplete: though they might explain a lot of phenomena using a few basic principles, and even predict many new and exciting results, eventually new experiments (or more precise ones) show a discrepancy between the workings of nature and the predictions of the theory. In the strict sense this means that the theory was not ``true'' after all; but the fact remains that it is a very good approximation to the truth, at lest where a certain type of phenomena is concerned.

When an accepted theory cannot explain some new data (which has been confirmed), the researchers working in that field strive to construct a new theory. This task gets increasingly more difficult as our knowledge increases, for the new theory should not only explain the new data, but also all the old one: a new theory has, as its first duty, to devour and assimilate its predecessors.
Anarchy Praxis
The use of experimental method was developed the the 17th century and establish by Newton as the litmos test for natural science on April 27, 1676. Prior to that scientific method based on experimentation was either speculative or non existant. Now it defines facts knowledge and scientific theory exclusivly. I keep mentioning theology because the alternative definition for science are either so general that they include theology or agree with mine (experimentum curcis). I realize that some people have personal issues with religion and flatly reject it as having any scientific merit. In order to substanativly argue a point like that the has to be a definition for religion and science that shows them to be mutually exclusive.

I've have quoted form the men most influential in the development of modern scientific method (experimentum crucis). I have pointed out that everyone one of them were not only theists but never discussed science without discussing God and theology at length. Theology was considered by most if not all of the Enlighningment thinkers to be a science. Prove me wrong and I'll eat a copy of Newton's Principilia on the steps of the Royal Society and I'll give you five minutes to draw a crowd.
Dingo
QUOTE
AP - I have pointed out that everyone one of them were not only theists but never discussed science without discussing God and theology at length. Theology was considered by most if not all of the Enlighningment thinkers to be a science.


I would be curious to know where a scientist like Newton based any of his scientific theories on the Bible or any theological writings. A belief in God as first cause is hardly comparable to seeing God as an intervening hand in natural process and part of the explanation for how things work.

The term God is ubiquitous and can be made to mean many things, including the mysterious unknown. The science vs. religion argument, unless we are here playing cute word games, occurs at the level of say evolution vs. creationism or natural law vs. miracles and so on. In literalist Christianity this involves a difference that is fundamental and pervasive; the difference between revelation and empirical evidence. Saying some scientists were theists addresses nothing.
Anarchy Praxis
Science has become a religion

April 27, 1676 Newton establishes experimental method as the litmos test for all natural science. Theology was considered as science but outside of, not opposed to natural science. Now natural science has and experimental method has become synonamous with science and reason. At one time science (lit. to know) was understood to be anything that can be known clearly and distinctly for certain. Natural science has now made claims against theology in the form of primary first cause i.e. creation/evolution. Here it has removed theology from the sciences and replaced it with its own metaphysics. The clerics of this Temple of Experimentum Crucis are a fellowship of natural scientists that expel at heritics and forbid them to enter the sacred relms of the scientist. Theists are barbarians and infidels. Fundamentalists of this secular religious order harp on naturalistic assumptions the way Christian and Islamic fundamentalists harp on rudamentary doctrine and religious practices. That is how science is worshiped and served as a pagan god, it has replace theology as a science.

No word games, no semantics, no circular reasoning. Natural science are two brancses of science but essentially sciences in theory and practice by definition.

Theology is a science.

Newton did not use natural science in his theology to prove or disprove causation. This didn't happen until experimentum crucis had been around for at least 100 years. Theology, I say again is a science by definition. Theology is an expression of logical, systematic thought based on the same principles of causation. The difference between theology and natural science (experimentum crucis) is found in the means. There is also a difference in the ends to which they are directed. The essential elements for qualifying a study as science is identical for science and theology.
Ultimatejoe
How can theology be a science when you cannot experiment on it?
Anarchy Praxis
Because science (lit. to know) is anything that can be known clearly for certain. Theology was seperated from natural science by the standard established in 1676, experimentum curcis, at the Royal Society in London. Before that experimentation was not nessacary to establish a scientific fact. When experimental method was established as the litmos test for natural science it was seperating it from the other sciences like theology. This did not exclude theology as a science it just defined them as different sciences. All the scientists that developed modern scientific method affirmed this and none of them denied it. Unless or until a definition for theology can be established that is directly contradicted by a definition of science the two, natural science (experimentum crucis) and theology both qualify as science. There just different pursuits.
Abs like Jesus
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 23 2003, 07:10 PM)
Because science (lit. to know) is anything that can be known clearly for certain. Theology was seperated from natural science by the standard established in 1676, experimentum curcis, at the Royal Society in London. Before that experimentation was not nessacary to establish a scientific fact...  Unless or until a definition for theology can be established that is directly contradicted by a definition of science the two, natural science (experimentum crucis) and theology both qualify as science. There just different pursuits.

Theology is a study in belief and in faith, not fact. You say "science is anything that can be known clearly for certain," which does not apply to theology. If it were known for certain it wouldn't be a study in faith but rather a study in facts.

That being said, in an attempt to return to the TOPIC, science and theology probably do have one thing in common in that they both originated out of man's innate curiosity about the world around him. What started as the creation of explanatory stories (myth and religion) progressed into closer examination to explain the discrepancies in stories in search of truth.
Anarchy Praxis
I defined all my terms clearly based on the best authority available and it has been ignored. I have defined science and distinquished it from natural science repeatedly and this is ignored. Theology is by definition a science and it my be based on religion or it may be based on atheistic assumptions but it is a science. I'm tired of being told that I'm off topic when I am the one who started it and my critics refuse to define theology and science in a way that proves them mutually exclusive. You are begging the question and talking in circles.

My premise that science was invented was rightfully questioned. I was waiting for someone to ask me which science I mean but the presumption is Experimentum Crucis is all of science. Science itself has existed ever since man first seriously tried to understand how things work. Natural science is only one way of doing that unless you are some kind of a secular fundamentalist who asserts in dogmatically. Praise experimentum crucis and shun the theistic infidel!

My arguments are sound and every rational point has been countered substanativly. Prove science (not natural science) and theology (not religion) are incompatable or quit trying to censure me.
Abs like Jesus
THE TOPIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE, and that is where you and others have drifted off topic.

QUOTE
My premise that science was invented was rightfully questioned. I was waiting for someone to ask me which science I mean but the presumption is Experimentum Crucis is all of science. Science itself has existed ever since man first seriously tried to understand how things work. Natural science is only one way of doing that unless you are some kind of a secular fundamentalist who asserts in dogmatically.
This is more or less on topic... save your disputes between religion and science for a separate thread.
Anarchy Praxis
Number one I have 20/20 eyesight so the caps are unnessacary. And religion and science are a side issue but it is far from off topic. Its reasonable to compare science to other kinds of knowledge. I said that theology was, by definition, one of the sciences and proved it, or at least qualified my statement. No one has tried to argue much less prove that it is not. Its just assumed. Want to do the etymology???
Jaime
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Jun 23 2003, 05:36 PM)
How can theology be a science when you cannot experiment on it?

That's a great question, Joe.

That is why I think theology is NOT a science. I would be willing to change my view on this if one can show me how one experiments with theology. It is my opinion that theology is more of a social science if it must be classified as a science.

QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ June 24, 2003, 1:54pm)
I defined all my terms clearly based on the best authority available and it has been ignored


That's not true. People here have presented their opinions, I think some happen to disagree with you, though. That's all.

QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ June 24, 2003, 1:54pm)
My arguments are sound and every rational point has been countered substanativly. Prove science (not natural science) and theology (not religion) are incompatable or quit trying to censure me.

Why should we have to? They are not incompatible just because they fall under different headings in semantics.

Is that what you were really looking for? For someone to admit that science is a man-made invention? Then yes, I'll bite. Science is 100% a man-made invention. I'd also go so far as to say that so is theology.

What am I missing here?
Anarchy Praxis
There is a relative diffenece between Math and Theology. Thats why Math was given preferance when the inventors of natural science were designing the prototype. "Most of all was I delighted with Mathematics because of the certainty of its demonstrations and the evidence of its reasoning...I honored our Theology and aspired as much as anyone to reach to heaven, but having learned to regard it as a most highly assured fact that the road is not leass open to the most ignorant than to the most learned...Then as to other sciences (other then theology and math) in as much as they derive their principles from Philosophy." (Descarte, Discourse on Method) Descarte also elaborates at length at the inability of math to produce virtue while this was theologies best quality.

The thing he did not trust about either was that they were both derived from sense perception (that could be wrong). He doubted his own perception and finally affirmed his famous; Ego Sum, Ego existo (I think, therefore I am) This he said was true no matter how he thought about it, theologically, mathamatically, philosophically...etc. Thats when he developed his method for be certain of things he percieved, it was a four step process of discerning reality from illusion. Here experimentum crucis is full term and the labor pains are starting. Keep in mind his philosophy is to be applied to all the sciences, not just natural science.

The reason for this kind of formal reasoning was nessacary is because they had reasoned logically to wrong conclusions for a thousand years, or more. ". These men had to be carefull not to toss the baby out with the bath water. The baby was concieved long before Descartes meditations.

Some earlier people and events have been associated with the movement but the inductive approach to natural science was initially demonstrated as effective by the development of the telescope. The telescope made it possible to observe the heavens many times clearer then previous astronomers could.
“…The telescope was being turned into a powerful tool by the Italian natural philosopher Galileo. The instrument was actually invented by a Dutchman, Hans Lippershey, in 1608, but Galileo's device, designed and built within two years of Lippershey's, was far superior and could magnify up to thirty times - making it powerful enough to distinguish craters on the Moon's surface and to observe a set of moons orbiting the planet” (White, The Last Sorcerer)

Anchient astronomy had affirmed that the heavens were perfect and that the moon was a perfect sphere. Now it became nessacary to differentiate between natural and supernatural understanding. The sciences had to become more specialized because knowledge was growing. I'm a little burnt out on fielding theology bashing. Anyone interested in the tool makers of the 17 century who invented (among other things), experimentum crucis, I'll be back.
rolleyes.gif

I did define experimental method and theology, all I ever said was that they were both inventions and the human mind was the source, they did not exist in nature. I also pointed out that substanative knowlege cannot be experimented on, only empirical ones can. This fact is undisputed among scientists. I said that my premise, that science was invented, was just to point out the difference between science (reason) and sciences (specialized pursuits) I did this in order to point out the prejudice against anything not generated by experimentum crucis. Thanks to one and all for proving my point for me. I dont mind people disagreeing with me, its just an intellectual ping pong match for me. Disagree at will
Jaime
AP - I appreciate that explanation, but now I have another question. Forgive me if it sounds a bit sophomoric, but I really am trying to understand both sides of this. Let's just say I more or less agree that science/natural science/social science/theology/philosophy are ALL human made inventions. My questions are 'so what?' Does it matter if they were human made or not?

I think science/natural science/social science/theology/philosophy can all exist harmoniously in most discussions even if we define each with different words. Is this all just semantics?
Abs like Jesus
Again, all you are arguing is methodology, Anarchy.
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 24 2003 @ 04:55 PM)
I did define experimental method and theology, all I ever said was that they were both inventions and the human mind was the source, they did not exist in nature. I also pointed out that substanative knowlege cannot be experimented on, only empirical ones can. This fact is undisputed among scientists. I said that my premise, that science was invented, was just to point out the difference between science (reason) and sciences (specialized pursuits) I did this in order to point out the prejudice against anything not generated by experimentum crucis.

The science of how the world works was there before humans every laid eyes on it, pondered its workings or went beyond philosophy to understand it. The methods by which we undertook this path are the only things that were invented, not the science itself. For each method there will be different origins, different "inventors." None of them, however, gets credit for the invention of science.

As to your argument that theology is a science, again the question remains how to verify any of it through experimentation. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at when you say, "substanative knowlege [sp] cannot be experimented on." My best guess is that you are meaning to say substantive and I'm not sure how you would say such knowledge is untestable. Perhaps you're meaning subjective?

It seems you would rather science abandon objectivity and accept abstract reasoning to be science, allowing just about anything and everything that can't be tested through its doors. The practice of science is the pursuit of knowledge and truth, though, not the creation of it. Theology merely creates stories and labels them as truth until they can be shown otherwise. But until it can verifiably show its beliefs and faith to be truths it is not science.
Anarchy Praxis
Jamie,

Thanks for jumping in, and yes it does make a difference if the source is the human imagination. It goes back to the subjective/objective duality of science. Which by the way Abs, subjective and substanative are not identical but essentially the same thing. This kind of duality is intrinsic in virtually all the sciences irrespective of their content. Lets try a little Kant, I realize you guys are probably getting sick of me throwing new words at you every time you quiz me on something. But I think it is a universal principle throughout the sciences, its a product of our reason.

Immanuel Kant in his ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ says that knowledge comes to us through experience but that experience alone is not enough, “General truths…must be independent of experience, -clear and certain by themselves.” Here he is telling us that the main problem of metaphysics is parody. For reason to transcend the particulars there is a need for singularity. Socrates in his discussion with Meno deals with this, “Meno; I should answer that bees do not differ from one another as bees. Socrates; and if I went on to say Meno; tell me what is the quality in which they do not differ but are alike.” (Titus, Discussions in Philosophy). This is a search for the transcendent principle of commonality. The substantive element in reality. This singularity is what Kant called apriori; a thing in and of itself, apprehended by us as an idea. Examples he gave were God, freedom and immortality. How are the sciences the same, rather then different? Think about this one because experimentation is a wrong answer.

Put plainly there is singularity, what Plato called ideas and scientific duality calls subjective. This idea Kant called apriori (without prior) and he contrasted with apostoria (with prior) which is empirical sense date i.e. experimentum crucis. The apostoria is the objective reality that is tested in the Experimentum crucis (crucial experiment). When you think about something like God, or divinity, or time your perception is apriori. When you think about the procreation of plants, or stars, or chemicals its apostoria. Both are based on reason. The Greeks called this logos (...ology) which means the expression of thought , not the mere name of an object. It came to represent systematic thought, skill systems were regarded as arts. The arts would include everything from shipbuilding to oil painting. Some times these practical applications are refered to simply as methods.

Lebniz describes how we form ideas from our sense. We become aware of a discrepancy between the idea and what actually exists “Thus the idea of things which exists is exclusively due to the fact that God, the author of both things and the mind has endowed our mind with this power to infer from it’s own internal operations the truths that correspond perfectly (singular) with that of external things (plural). Whence although the idea of a circle, is not exactly like a circle, we may infer from the idea truths which experience would undoubtedly confirm concerning the true circle. (Titus, Discissions in Philosophy).

I think maybe we could skip the theology for a while, I still think it is a science but I'm trying to explore science in general and the particular branches of science is getting too mindboggling for my simple mind.



wacko.gif
Abs like Jesus
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 24 2003 @ 07:38 PM)
I realize you guys are probably getting sick of me throwing new words at you every time you quiz me on something.
You aren't throwing new words at us. I brought up "substanative" because (according to Merriam-Webster) it wasn't a word. I figured you were either misspelling it over and over again or mixing it up with something else, hence offering you the choice of substantive or subjective to correct it. dry.gif
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 24 2003 @ 07:38 PM)
Immanuel Kant in his ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ says that knowledge comes to us through experience but that experience alone is not enough, “General truths…must be independent of experience, -clear and certain by themselves.”

From what I'm reading (HERE) your examples (God, immortality and divinity) would be examples of synthetic apriori. They would not constitute "genuine knowledge" or known truth but rather speculation. It isn't science, but abstract reasoning and theology, studies in belief rather than fact. While they remain such it doesn't seem they fall under the guard of science.
Ultimatejoe
Speak properly, and in as few words as you can, but always plainly; for the end of speech is not ostentation, but to be understood.
-William Penn

Kant is not a weapon to be used lightly... w00t.gif Your posts are extremely long and thorough but they seem to be lacking in something to me; clarity. Your exact argument shifts with every post and in each post you follow your logic like a drunk follows a woman down the sidewalk. I'm finding it hard to follow. I know this may sound condescending, but can you pay more attention to your grammar and less to your research?

QUOTE
I think maybe we could skip the theology for a while, I still think it is a science but I'm trying to explore science in general and the particular branches of science is getting too mindboggling for my simple mind.


Then perhaps you should stop bringing it up. Besides, you have asserted that theology is a science. We have asked how it could be a science without the possibility of experimentation, and you haven't answered.

QUOTE
When you think about something like God, or divinity, or time your perception is apriori.


I don't see how this is true. When I think about God, my thoughts are borne out of the understanding of the Jewish faith that has been imparted on me.
Wertz
I accept Anarchy Praxis' suggestion that there is a element of faith in our respect for science (especially when it comes to life sciences such as medicine), though much less so than in religion, which is matter of pure faith. I would also submit that, at the extremes of, say, particle physics, there may even be some overlap with some branches of mysticism (Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophists, for example). But I think that to consider all scientific pursuit prior to the Enlightenment as a branch of theology is a mistake - and it certainly overlooks the contributions of the ancients, be they Chinese, Mesopotamian or Greek. Natural science before the 1600s was not the same as theology. And by any definition that I've ever come across in my life, theology is not a science.

To kinda return to the question as originally put, if that's okay: Those on the quest for knowledge from the start of the Renaissance were hardly all concerned with pursuing science for the greater glory of God. Indeed, many were opposed by the Church and some actively sought to refute the Church's teachings. Far from arising with the advent of the philosophes, though, there is a history of observation, experimentation, and discovery going back well before the Common Era and, even in the several decades preceding Newton's Principia, the scientific community was hardly idle. Granted, there was something of an explosion in scientific research with the Age of Reason, but Newton was hardly the first or only proponent of the the scientific method. While the term "scientific method" may not have been used, the method itself has been around for centuries.

Astronomy, perhaps the oldest disciplined science (if one excludes agriculture, mathematics and technology), can trace its roots to at least Thales of Miletus who, in 585 BCE, predicted a solar eclipse in Asia Minor. Oenopides of Chios determined that the earth is tilred in relation to the sun in 480 BCE; Kidinnu of Babylon discovered the precession of equinoxes in 340 BCE; Eratosthenes of Cyrene correctly calculated the earth's size in 240 BCE; Hipparchus of Nicea correctly discovered the distance from the earth to the moon in 130 BCE; and Ptolemy proposed a heliocentric planetary system in 140 CE. The Chinese were hardly slouches, either. They observed a supernova in 352 BCE, began compiling star maps around 300 BCE, observed what later became known as Halley's comet in 240 BCE, and discovered sunspots in 165 BCE.

Advances in other sciences were not uncommon in the ancient world either:

370 BCE: Democritus of Abdera expands on the concept of the atom (introduced by Leucippus of Miletus in 450 BCE)
350 BCE: Aristotle classifies known animals in a system used until 1735 CE and Euclid publishes Elements
300 BCE: Dicaearchus develops a map of the earth on a sphere using lines of latitude and Herophilus founds a school of anatomy, performing the first dissections of the human body
260 BCE: Archimedes develops mathematical descriptions of the lever and other simple machines
250 BCE: Archimedes establishes theorems regarding the volume of solids and calculates the value of pi
230 BCE: Apollonius publishes Conics in which he analyzes such curves as the parabola, the ellipse, and, one with which everyone at America's Debate should be familiar, the hyperbola

Scientific advances continued throughout the Middle Ages, notably in Asia and the Near East, but even in Europe, in the century or so before Newton, there was a fair amount of scientific activity:

1543: Copernicus presents an accurate and convincing description of the solar system in De Revolutionibus and Vesalius publishes the first accurate anatomy text
1572: Rafael Bombelli uses complex numbers to solve equations
1577: Tycho Brahe proved that comets are celestial bodies rather than weather phenomena
1586: Simon Stevinus shows that two different weights dropped from the same height fall at the same speed
1590: The compound microscope is developed in Holland
1600: William Gilbert suggests that the earth is a gigantic magnet and describes magnetic north
1604: Galileo Galilei publishes his discovery that falling bodies gain velocity as the square of time
1609: Johannes Kepler discovers that planets move in elliptical orbits
1610: Galileo observes the phases of Venus, Jupiter's moons, and the rings of Saturn
1614: John Napier describes logarithms
1628: William Harvey describes the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood
1637: Rene Descartes publishes the first account of analytic geometry
1643: Toricelli invents the first barometer (thereby producing the first vacuum known to science)
1642: Blaise Pascal invents the first calculating machine, capable of addition and subtractio
1648: Jan van Helmont demonstrates that plants do not obtain large amounts of material from the soil for their growth
1654: Pascal and Fermat develop the basic laws of probability and Christian Huygens develops the pendulum clock
1662: Robert Boyle publishes Boyle's Law regarding the pressure and volume of gasses
1663: Pascal proposes Pascal's Law in relation to transmission of pressure in fluids
1665: Robert Hooke observes and names the cell
1668: Francesco Redi demonstrates that maggots in meat do not spontaneously generate but are hatched from flies eggs
1669: Nicolaus Steno correctly identifies the origins of fossils and Leeuwenhoek discovers microorganisms and recognizes that sperm cells are part of reproduction
1671: Cassini correctly determines the distances of the planets from the sun
1678: Huygens introduces the wave theory of light
1679: Liebniz perfects the binary system of notation
1682: Edmond Halley correctly predicts the return of a comet in 1758
1684: Liebniz publishes his account of the disciovery of calculus
1687: Isaac Newton publishes Principia containing laws of motion and the theory of gravity, thereby becoming the world's first scientist. ermm.gif

Of course, if we are including mathematic developments as scientific pursuits, Egypt developed a numeration system with place-holders for units, tens, hundreds, and thousands circa 3500 BCE and Mesopotamians did the same, independently, around 2400 BCE. Mesopotamia also gave us solutions to quadratic equations (2000 BCE) and the Pythagorean theorem (1900 BCE). And, if we're including agriculture in the life sciences, the domestication of sheep, goats, and pigs and the cultivation of crops dates to 9000 BCE in Persia, Afghanistan, Anatolia, and Canaan and 8000 BCE in Peru and Indochina. Technological advances such as the use of stone tools go back 2,400,000 years and such developments as firing pottery, weaving, smelting, and plumbing all pre-date Christ by more than 2000 years.

Given all of the above, it is a bit difficult to estimate when science was "invented" and impossible to consider it, pre-Newton, a purely religious pursuit. I would tend to agree with several contributors here that the quest knowledge, for quantifying and describing our world, is one of the things which makes us human. Part of this quest has been to know and describe God and the life of the spirit. But the parallel search concerned with the earth, the stars, and living things - science - has been part of humanity since we came down from the trees.

So: Who gets the credit for the invention of science? Humankind. When was science invented? "In the beginning..."
Hugo
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jun 24 2003, 09:46 PM)

So: Who gets the credit for the invention of science? Humankind.

Once again a speciescentric human trying to claim his group invented everything. Maybe humans did not invent science, just look here
Wertz
Heh - if a prairie dog or a sea anemone wants to take me on, let them post here. Meanwhile, would you like to offer a human perspective on the debate, hugo? huh.gif You did, after all, seem to be making a case for homo habilis yourself earlier...
Hugo
Since Bud, the prarie dog, was recently take by the Center for Disease Control, I best explain my point. (before Jaime calls strike two) The point is science may be even more basic than religion. It seems quite probable that science preceeded religion, even if you do not accept that sea anemones or prairie dogs are practicing science. Religion requires a sense of your own mortality, science does not. The recognition of death itself includes recognition of certain elements of biology. The recognition that not only do others die, but someday you will; must come from repeated observations, informal science so to speak.
Dingo
QUOTE
Wertz - So: Who gets the credit for the invention of science? Humankind. When was science invented? "In the beginning..."


Amen. Great post Wertz. You provided my tutorial for the day. I do want to correct you on one comment. Ptolemy was the exponent of the prevailing view in Europe up until Copernicus that the universe was geocentric. I just confirmed that impression by checking google.

What's your IQ anyway? You always sound like you're about 20 points higher on the totem pole than anyone else.
AuthorMusician
Just a few thoughts:

What came first, gravity or Newton?

Gravity. Else Newton would have flown off the earth, or rather, never been born.

What came first, God or humankind?

By humankind's definition, God came first.

I think therein lies the difference between science and theology. The principles that science studies are also preconditions for the study to exist. This is not true for theological studies. God need not exist for the study to be carried out. God's necessity is from humankind's definition of God.

So . . . could the universe exist as we know it without a definition of God?

Eh, that's pretty likely. But the fact remains that part of the universe as we know it includes a definition of God. Is that just a human tendency, or is it something built into the creation? Put into a more generalized form, is awareness of spirituality part of consciousness?

And does consciousness exist in reality like gravity?

Well, yah--the question could not be asked otherwise.

Heading toward a Zen paradox here, so guess I'll go do something else biggrin.gif
Julian
Okay, I think I can see where AP is coming from - the original meaning of "science" is just "knowledge" (from the Latin scire - to know).

In this sense, theology is as much a "science" as biology, geology, anthropology, sociology or mathematics.

However, in this usage, we must also count astrology, accupuncture, spiritualism, and so on as "sciences" since they also represent bodies of knowledge, even if they have no basis in what AP calls the "natural sciences" i.e. their claims either cannot be tested using the scientific method, or where they can, they are proven to be false claims.

Plus, "theology" (literally "the words (about) god", as "biology" is "the words (about) life") is not limited to Christianity, but must also contain the study of all other religious beliefs to be a "science" in it's own right.

Assuming that Christian theology is the only valid form of theology is as disingenuous and/or sloppy debating as assuming that natural science is the only form of science, yet AP has been doing the one all thread while consistantly complaining when other posters do the other.

But given the way that the debate has, wittingly or not, become confused by word usage, I'll stick my neck out and claim that the Romans invented science, since they invented the Latin word from which ours is derived.

What do I win? biggrin.gif
Anarchy Praxis
Natural science is from particulars to principles. Theology is from principles to particulars. .

By far the weakest part of my arguments is the fact that I am having trouble clarifying my central point. I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Lets try this in terms of contants and variables. In the natural sciences: physics, biology, anatomy, math, theorms of pi, parabola, meterology, microscopes... etc. are based on the particulars (variables). You acumulate as much data from observation as possible and over time you organize the particulars (variables) in a systematic way and ultimatly it becomes a theory or ultimatly a law (constants). Please dont start argueing the semantics this is not about terminology. This is natural science and it is determined by experimentum crucis.

I never said that natural science was a branch of theology, I said that they were both branches of science. They had to be seperated because the two were incompatable. After almost a week of hammering away at this point I think I can clarify why. Theology begins with the principles and works form there. Natural science starts with the particulars. In Christianity there is God, who loves (agape) as an expression of his rightious character. There is a list of particuare virtues associated with love but all those virtues are derived form the nature and character of God i.e. love. The particular (variable) expressions of love are predicated on the principle.

I never said that Newton was the first scientist. I said he established experimentum crucis as the litmos test for truth in natural science. I also said that this was not the case before 1676, you could establish natualistic truth rethorically or logically. After it had to be proved empirically or rejected as natural science. They are both science in every since of the word except; one is focused on multiple relative truths that are constantly being updated and revised; the other is focused on universal, ultimate, eternal truth. They both are science i.e. sources of knowledge, clear, distinct, and certain in and of itself.

Natural science is from particulars (variables) to principles (constants). Theology is from principles(constants) to particulars (variables). Both are based on reason but they work in opposite directions.

Creationism is not banned from the public schools based exclusivly on the 1st amendment. Its also tied to the 14th. There is a very good reason that one protects public expression and the other privacy and together they ban religion from the schools. Its because religion comes from core convictions and thats a private matter. In science observations of a natural scientists are out there for anyone to see. I hope that helps to clarify, otherwise we are going to be here for a while
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.