Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

tama

(9,137 posts)

9. So

Reply to provis99 (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 04:39 PM

Feb 2012

science is not as science does (when scientists apply e.g. Occam's Razor) but exactly as you define it and its boundaries?

And what is this "rational basis" that you mention?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Atheist Q&A [View all] Silent3 Feb 2012 OP

Mostly agree. I think he short-sold humanistic morality a bit dmallind Feb 2012 #1

So you've read the book? Silent3 Feb 2012 #2

Ah - missed the distinction - thought QA was with author. Sorry. nt dmallind Feb 2012 #5

As for my own answers... Silent3 Feb 2012 #7

there is no rational basis for an idea like Occam's Razor provis99 Feb 2012 #8

So tama Feb 2012 #9

But it is very good for deterrmining likely hypotheses to investigate dmallind Feb 2012 #10

it is of zero value when determining likely hypotheses. provis99 Feb 2012 #12

In medicine, there is a similar construct. cbayer Feb 2012 #13

A) Crap b) why is either ontology or a philosopjy construct a question for scientists? dmallind Feb 2012 #14

Hogwash skepticscott Feb 2012 #15

Its NATURE! elleng Feb 2012 #3

You Are Searching For Certain Answers 1ProudAtheist Feb 2012 #4

I can't get to the review that you're referencing. Jim__ Feb 2012 #6

massimo's post notinavat Feb 2012 #16

Surprising that Rosenberg claims to be on board with all that; then claims the macro world is ... Jim__ Feb 2012 #17

Pigliucci, Rosenberg etc notinavat Feb 2012 #11