Before The Common Era.

[Shwa]

So not useful in science....

OK, so - to re-iterate - science (to you) is the only way to obtain knowledge. Correct?

[GostHacked]

OK, so - to re-iterate - science (to you) is the only way to obtain knowledge. Correct?

Science is the only way to obtain a universal objective point of knowledge. Like the earth being round.

However, there are two types of knowledge. Objective and subjective.

Subjective knowledge cannot be used in the scientific process to garner reliable consistent results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

Edited January 28, 2010 by GostHacked

[Shwa]

Subjective knowledge cannot be used in the scientific process to garner reliable consistent results.

Are you sure about that? Is that your final answer?

[GostHacked]

Are you sure about that? Is that your final answer?

Keep digging.

[Shwa]

Keep digging.

No seriously, is that your final answer? Yes or no?

[ToadBrother]

OK, so - to re-iterate - science (to you) is the only way to obtain knowledge. Correct?

I doubt anyone but an extreme materialist would claim that. However, it does represent the best way of gaining knowledge in a systematic, testable and amendable fashion. Science was developed because other systems of knowledge, to be honest, were far too unreliable. I mean, how do you objectively determine whether a Protestant or a Catholic is right, or whether witchcraft or demons spoiled the crop?

[GostHacked]

No seriously, is that your final answer? Yes or no?

Objective knowledge is true to everyone. (Science)

Subjective knowledge is true to only a group of people. (religion)

[Shwa]

Objective knowledge is true to everyone. (Science)

Subjective knowledge is true to only a group of people. (religion)

Now you are dodging which is quite unscientific and somewhat dishonest. So I will ask you one more time, directly:

Subjective knowledge cannot be used in the scientific process to garner reliable consistent results. Do you believe your statement to be objective knowledge?

[GostHacked]

Now you are dodging which is quite unscientific and somewhat dishonest. So I will ask you one more time, directly:

Like your dodging of the Lazarus Question in the other thread? Come on, you have dodges way more questions than I have of yours. We have a couple threads to prove that beyond a doubt.

Subjective knowledge cannot be used in the scientific process to garner reliable consistent results. Do you believe your statement to be objective knowledge?

When subjective knowledge is used in the scientific process and if it garners consistent reliable results, then it moves into the realm of objective knowledge. Because others who may not be pre-biased due to the subjective nature of the knowledge will be able to test it and then say 'yay' or 'nay'. If nay, then the knowledge stays subjective. If it is a yay, then it moves to objective knowledge.

I have not dodged any of your questions. I have chosen not to really answer some of them because it feels like a set up. For the past few pages, which I have stated, that I am waiting for the 'gotcha' moment from you. I'd rather not give you that chance:D.

In the end I will say my statement is objective. You can test it if you please. I await your results.

[Argus]

To you it may be a fear but to everyone else it's a preference.

To me it's goofy and stupid and politically correct.

Not surprised the lefties adore it.

[Argus]

Not much makes it noteworthy. It's pegged at the wrong date. Yes, it was popularized in the 8th century, but surely researchers are quite free to use any dating system they want, and in general, "Christian era" only really refers for much of its history to a rather small chunk of the population of the planet.

Yes, but it's by far the most important chunk.

[GostHacked]

Yes, but it's by far the most important chunk.

Well, the Dark Ages is something we should not forget. This way it can be prevented in the future!

[charter.rights]

I have not dodged any of your questions. I have chosen not to really answer some of them because it feels like a set up.

No. You have dodged the questions. And "choosing" not to answer questions because you think is a set-up is a dodge no matter how you try to spin it.

[GostHacked]

No. You have dodged the questions. And "choosing" not to answer questions because you think is a set-up is a dodge no matter how you try to spin it.

I have played enough Fool's Games to know what to avoid. I have learned to do as best as I can to not set myself up. Some of that learning has come from posting on this site.

It's kind of like the questions that go like this : 'Does your wife know you are gay?' How does one honestly and effectively answer this. If I say yes, then my wife knows I am gay. If not then my wife does not know I am gay. But this leaves out the third possibility that I am straight. Or the 4th possibility that my wife could be gay and I do not know about it... and even a 5th where I do know about it.

These are the games I don't like to play. And that is what's happening here for the most part. It's an attempt at cornering which will result in a desired outcome that will please the one doing the cornering. The best thing to do there is simply not play the game. And that frustrates the hell out of a lot of people.

[charter.rights]

I have played enough Fool's Games to know what to avoid. I have learned to do as best as I can to not set myself up. Some of that learning has come from posting on this site.

It's kind of like the questions that go like this : 'Does your wife know you are gay?' How does one honestly and effectively answer this. If I say yes, then my wife knows I am gay. If not then my wife does not know I am gay. But this leaves out the third possibility that I am straight. Or the 4th possibility that my wife could be gay and I do not know about it... and even a 5th where I do know about it.

These are the games I don't like to play. And that is what's happening here for the most part. It's an attempt at cornering which will result in a desired outcome that will please the one doing the cornering. The best thing to do there is simply not play the game. And that frustrates the hell out of a lot of people.

No. The question put to you was not a fallacy argument. It was to establish a point of reference - where you are coming from - in order to state or rephrase the discussion in terms you can understand.

Yet you have fear that your position will be attacked, the real issue in defending your position is that it is not tenable and therefore your fear is that it is open to challenge and will not stand under scrutiny.

You have lost the debate before even starting, simply by dodging one question.

Edited January 29, 2010 by charter.rights

[GostHacked]

No. The question put to you was not a fallacy argument. It was to establish a point of reference - where you are coming from - in order to state or rephrase the discussion in terms you can understand.

The thing is I have answered the questions. Science is the only way to gain objective knowledge. Everything else to me is subjective knowledge simply because it is not true to everyone.

There are only two types of knowledge. Objective and subjective. This is about the simplest terms I can put it in.

You have lost the debate before even starting, simply by dodging one question.

I am just getting started

[Shwa]

The thing is I have answered the questions. Science is the only way to gain objective knowledge. Everything else to me is subjective knowledge simply because it is not true to everyone.

How about sports? Can you gain objective knowledge from the athletic processes?

[GostHacked]

How about sports? Can you gain objective knowledge from the athletic processes?

Define athletic process?

[M.Dancer]

How about sports? Can you gain objective knowledge from the athletic processes?

Only when examined scientifically. Unless you are predisposed to believe that the Leafs losing 3-2 in overtime is objective knowledge.