The Catholic Message Board
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/

I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't science
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=167458
Page 1 of 1

Author:  beng [ Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:48 pm ]
Post subject:  I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't science

I get atheists to deny that math, law, history (I didn't mention philosopphy for obvious reason) are not science on youtube comment (not the best place, but hey).

How cool is that?

I kept pressing on their scientism tendency and finally they came clean and deny the scientific nature of math, law, history.

Author:  Peetem [ Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

beng wrote:
I get atheists to deny that math, law, history (I didn't mention philosopphy for obvious reason) are not science on youtube comment (not the best place, but hey).

How cool is that?

I kept pressing on their scientism tendency and finally they came clean and deny the scientific nature of math, law, history.


How? By leading them to say something like, “Only something that can be proven by the scientific method is scientific.”?

Author:  Jack3 [ Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

beng wrote:
I get atheists to deny that math, law, history (I didn't mention philosopphy for obvious reason) are not science on youtube comment (not the best place, but hey).

How cool is that?

I kept pressing on their scientism tendency and finally they came clean and deny the scientific nature of math, law, history.

...then those parts of "science" where math is used (anything with graphical representation, anywhere trig. is used) are based on "unscientific" principles and thus science itself is unscientific.

Author:  ThomisticCajunAggie [ Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

Under the standard contemporary definitions, those aren't science. None of them proceed via experimentation. Math is a science (or collection of sciences) in Aristotle's sense, but law and history are not...

Author:  Doom [ Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

ThomisticCajunAggie wrote:
Under the standard contemporary definitions, those aren't science. None of them proceed via experimentation. Math is a science (or collection of sciences) in Aristotle's sense, but law and history are not...


Both history and law, or more accurately, jurisprudence, are sciences, there is no possible definition of 'science' you can come up with that would apply to something like physics but not disciplines like history, psychology, economics, or jurisprudence are not.

Author:  ThomisticCajunAggie [ Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

Doom wrote:
ThomisticCajunAggie wrote:
Under the standard contemporary definitions, those aren't science. None of them proceed via experimentation. Math is a science (or collection of sciences) in Aristotle's sense, but law and history are not...


Both history and law, or more accurately, jurisprudence, are sciences, there is no possible definition of 'science' you can come up with that would apply to something like physics but not disciplines like history, psychology, economics, or jurisprudence are not.


This can be disproved by counterexample. Here's the definition Google gives:

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

History and law do not fit under that umbrella, so your statement has been disproven. I don't necessarily think that's the best definition, but it is a definition (and roughly equivalent to what most people think of as science in the contemporary world).

Aristotle held that sciences involved knowledge of universals. However, law and history deal with particulars, and thus they are not sciences in the sense of Aristotle either.

Author:  beng [ Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

I don't buy that modern definition by google. That modern definition has screwed up the world (ie. scientism). We need to get back to the classic definition of science.


Btw, here is the exchange:


    Me:
    Math doesn't need scientific evidence to uncover the truth, so does Philosophy, history, law, art etc.

    Atheist:
    History very definitely does rely on evidence, and so does law.

    Math and philosophy are artificial constructs of human beings, although in both, practitioners have to show their work to make sure that it conforms to the rules human beings have created. If you want to consider gods to be a creation of human beings, I'd be fine with that.

    Me:
    1a. Yes, history and law does need evidence. But not of the scientific kind (meaning, not the empirical kinds as demanded by natural sciences).

    1b. Math and art are artificial construct? I don't know what that even means. If there's an alien out there then 1+1 must equals two for them just like how it is for us on earth. And a sequence of 1234 pattern would be more artistic than a sequence of 4719.

    Atheist:
    1a. Yes, history and law does need evidence. But not of the scientific kind


    They still need evidence. Evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. Reality needs to be a check on your imagination if you care about the truth at all.

    1b. Math and art are artificial construct?

    Of course. We human beings created both. (I said math and philosophy, but it fits for art, too.) Math is useful to the extent that it does comport with reality (which requires looking at reality to confirm). Otherwise, it would just be a game.

    Ok, some more exchange but then he respond to my word by excluding math, history and art as science

    Atheist:
    13. Why shouldn't Christian call the study of God, theology, a science?


    Oh, maybe because it doesn't fit the definition of science, it's faith-based, rather than evidence-based, and theologians don't use the scientific method? Those will do for starters, at least.

    which means that you would exclude math, law, history as sciences

    Yes. Of course.

Author:  ThomisticCajunAggie [ Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

History and law aren't science according to Aristotle's definition either.

Author:  beng [ Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

Maybe you get Aristotle wrong.

And i will use the classical definition that conform with what I said. There, problem solved.

Author:  Closet Catholic [ Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

In Europe when we say 'science' we mean all the subjects you might find at a university. When (many) Americans say science (as in the STEM sciences), we say 'natural science' (naturvitskap in Norwergian, Naturwissenschaft in German, cf. the older name of 'natural philosophy').

Author:  beng [ Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I get atheists to say that math, law, history aren't sci

European got it right.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/