Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 8, 2018 11:46:13 GMT
1) Fact: the word 'science' was first used in its regular sense only the last two or three hundred years.
That word would have been 'science' only once it appeared in the 1800's Arlon, where it superseded the term 'natural philosophy', and helped to separate 'science' from 'philosophy'. The point was that the Romans did not introduce it as you claimed - even if there was an English language to introduce it to! Identifying something as science from a modern standpoint does not change how it was called in the ancient past. Hence, strictly, you were incorrect.
But don't take my word for it, as if you would lol
Ultimately, it was the scientist William Whewell [in 1833] who coined the term scientist in response to the poet's plea that "natural philosophers" upgrade the name of their profession
symbionticism.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-history-of-science-when-was-word.html
symbionticism.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-history-of-science-when-was-word.html
I hope that helps.
The exact meaning of the Ten Commandments can be very clear to people who practice religion and often the subject of intense controversy to people in need of such practice.
By way of answer it is only necessary to observe that something controversial does not necessarily mean something unclear.
My argument was simply that religion and the central ideas in it can be useful in dealing with abstract and nebulous concepts.
No, you did not make the argument could be 'useful', you merely introduced this as one 3 definitions of 'god'. You forget that I had to actually read your article, and wade through, to find this! It may well indeed be 'useful'. But that is not what was discussed by you there. And, by including nature as one of the 'forces required to develop a system of ethics' you indeed imply the Fallacy of Nature - which was my main point.
FF: There, too, have been (rare) cases of people who, after head injuries & etc suddenly acquire linguistic talents. But I am not aware of any brain specialists attributing this to a supernatural entity.
Arlon: If what you mean here is that science can do anything religion can do, and without a god, you missed the whole point of the article.
Arlon: If what you mean here is that science can do anything religion can do, and without a god, you missed the whole point of the article.
When I ever argue that impossibility, be sure and come back again. I merely reflected the reasonable view that it is unwise to attribute everything currently unknown to the supernatural. For The God of the Gaps argument is another fallacy, is it not?
No positive proof [of Arlon's preferred, deliberate supernatural candidate] is waiting for your endorsement.
As usual then; and QED.