Natural science is a term used to encompass many disciplines of science. By the 18th century, the term "natural science" was being used to describe all scientific study versus political or religious.
2006-06-17 01:52:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by dm_dragons 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
"It seems that either there can be no explanation for the origin of nature, or if there is an explanation, it cannot be naturalistic and hence be supernatural." Translated: "I cannot explain it, therefore I can explain it." Um... no. Your imagination is not a substitute for actual data. Philosophy is insufficient for discovering natural truths, and invoking the supernatural is appealing to magic. What you're basically saying is "I don't BELIEVE science will ever figure out the origin of nature, so in my ignorance I will substitute my personal fantasy." Appeal to Ignorance is not an answer to any question. Ever. Try again. "Please carefully think through the logic on this one. Trying to explain all observable, testable phenomena (nature) using observable, testable causes is circular reasoning. Either there can be no explanation for why nature exists, or the explanation is non-naturalistic. This is fairly straight-forward." Please look up the definition of "false dichotomy" then get back to me. I'm not getting into a logic debate with someone who keeps committing informal logical fallacies. At least have the decency to keep a list of them open in a separate browser that you can refer to. Your second attempt was more pitiful than your first. Third time's a charm? "it's just that there is no way to use science to explain the origin of nature itself without being caught in circular reasoning." This is at best a false premise. What your saying is that a system cannot analyze itself. You may as well throw out all fields dealing with human biology if that is true. Basically what you're saying is "nature is incapable of understanding itself". You're conferring a HIGH degree of gnosticism on yourself that you do not posses. You see, YOU'RE getting caught in circular reasoning because you're violating Occam's Razor and tossing in a superfluous variable: The Supernatural. You assume the premise that the supernatural exists, and it is the cause of the natural(blindly ignoring infinite regression and the question of what causes the supernatural. The meta-natural?). Then you presume that infinite information exists and that human understanding is now, and forever will be, finite. You also suppose that one of the pieces of information that will always be unattainable to us is the supernatural. Which you have nevertheless bizarrely invoked to explain your fictional cosmology. How very convenient. Where did you get knowledge of the supernatural from? I thought you were a natural creature. There are only two kinds of things: Natural things, and Unnatural things. Unnatural things do not exist. Because if something wasn't natural, it wouldn't happen. Just because we do not know everything, that doesn't mean that everything is beyond our knowledge. That's just something that you're telling yourself because you like the idea of the "super" natural. So much more romantic than boring old reality, yes? I want you to try this phrase out: "I do not know, and making things up is not a substitute for knowledge." Really, just try it out. Try saying "I don't know." ESPECIALLY if you have no intention of actually going out there and DOING THE WORK NECESSARY TO FIND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING!!! See, that's what the scientists, engineers, and researchers are out there doing. Looking for answers, and that takes a lot of hard work and effort. And they admit they do not know, until they actually have some answers. What you're doing is armchair metaphysics, and it's just damn lazy. I have no respect for it, especially when you use it to make claims that you cannot back up in the slightest. What is supposed to be my response to your claim that has no evidence? Cool story bro. That's all it is. A story. Do you also go to your accountant bragging about how rich you are, but then tell him you don't have any numbers? You don't know. Neither do I, but at least I'm honest with myself.
2016-05-19 22:32:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
natural science grew out of the lies told by the clergy to the people. When people realized that the church was lying to them about some things.. they wanted to know the truth about stuff for themselves. Wealthy people that had the time and resources were able to follow the examples of the monks and clergy.. and make their own experiments... and to share their information with others.
2006-06-24 09:21:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by ♥Tom♥ 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hell at least string together a complete sentence if your going to ask a total stranger a question.
Check the library for your answer and stop being so darned lazy
2006-06-28 15:04:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Renegade 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Paradoxically, during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, many British and European clergymen took to studying and documenting plants & animals, in order to better illustrate Divine Creation.
Look where it got them!
2006-06-17 07:00:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
when people began to collect and study all of the natural world around them from rocks and fossils to beetles and butterflies.
2006-06-17 04:54:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
nature.
2006-06-29 00:08:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
it started wen man began to interact with nature........
2006-06-17 01:45:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by nora 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
