Creationism vs. Flat Earth: Which belief is more irrational?

[Gordy327]

You're using some human experience, logic and/or philosophy input to make the above particular determination about the scientific method and it's relationship to reality. And that's not horrible.

Superior, whatever that is, is quite subjective to the portion of reality that we're facing in our daily lives. The fact is humankind has a multitude of tools (logic, science, human experience, theology, philosophy, emotion, etc.) in our tool bag in which to pry the reality out of this world. For example, you will rely on logic intuitively several times today without even knowing it, will be emotionally driven by the love for your wife, and will make some decisions about your philosophy on economics. All just today.

It's about using the best method to view and understand reality. There's a reason why scientists use the scientific method for this. Experience, theology and the like are more subjective and prone to inaccuracy, bias, and error. Thus they are not the best means for objectively examining reality.

 

[devildavid]

A hypothesis is literally wondering about something.

It even requires a test to falsify.

Almost every hypothesis at some point includes an if-then proposition. That is wondering about something. Literally.

The scientific method requires that proof be offered. However, if the theorist never wondered about it in the first place, that proof would never be sought and, if found, would likely never be noticed as having worth.

Whether it Newton wondering why that apple fell to the ground or Einstein wondered if there was a relationship between gravity and everything else, their first step was wondering about it.

A scientific hypothesis requires more than "literally wondering about something".

 

[Mulefoot]

It's about using the best method to view and understand reality. There's a reason why scientists use the scientific method for this. Experience, theology and the like are more subjective and prone to inaccuracy, bias, and error. Thus they are not the best means for objectively examining reality.

Far too simplistic as disciplines are interconnected and dependent on each other. But your position has moved from the only method to best method. You at least now recognize other methods of inquiry, so I guess that's progress.

 

[Gordy327]

Far too simplistic as disciplines are interconnected and dependent on each other.

Not really. Theism is not dependent on science or vice versa.

But your position has moved from the only method to best method.

Sometimes they are one in the same.

You at least now recognize other methods of inquiry, so I guess that's progress.

Again, why settle for less than the best?

 

[RAMOSS]

You have an odd view of curiosity.

If nobody ever asks, "Why?", how do you suppose any consideration ever advances beyond the statement. "That's the way it is"?

A lecture series on Prime right now discusses the ideas and genius employed by the ancient Romans and Greeks. One was a simple steam engine. An Aeolipile.

The narrator asks a question that the Greeks, and then the Romans, apparently neglected to ask: "WHY couldn't we use this power to driven bigger and better, more useful machines?"

If they had asked that question, the industrial revolution might have launched about 2000 years ago instead of about 500 years ago.

As it actually occurred, a variety of folks were working on that "Why?" in the late 1600's and early 1700's. The result of them asking, "Why?" is today's modern world.

If nobody asks "Why?", not much changes. Judging by the frequency of questions containing that word from three and four year olds, curiosity is the natural state of humans.

Aeolipile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

<snip>

An illustration of Hero's aeolipile
<snip>

False analogy. The better word for that is 'how can we' , not 'why'.