Transubstantiation

[Don John of Austria]

Agian science IS a philosophy.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:11 PM'] As I stated in the other thread, PioNono, Phatmasser777 is not hear to help. He only causes a disturbance.

As a scientist (forensic toxicologist), I offer the following testimony: Science relies upon philosophy. It is in no way and cannot be construed in any way to exist separate from philosophy. [/quote]
Go eat a brick.

[Phatmasser777]

Science does NOT need or require Philosphy. Simple as that. Nor Religion.

[Don John of Austria]

Science IS a philosophy, if you understood either one you wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Benedict]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 4 2005, 04:33 AM'] Go eat a brick. [/quote]
I had a rather heavy and distasteful fruit cake for dessert.

[quote]Science does NOT need or require Philosphy. Simple as that. Nor Religion. [/quote]
As an expert witness, I have already countered this assertion (and, truly, you have offered absolutely nothing beyond the mere assertion).

[Phatmasser777]

[color=red]Edited by Ice Princess: Personal attack.[/color]

Edited January 5, 2005 by IcePrincessKRS

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 5 2005, 06:41 AM'] original post edited
:rotfl:

Edited January 5, 2005 by IcePrincessKRS

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 3 2005, 08:40 AM'] Is that a backslap put-down? Not very charitable. One more sin to add to your collection. [/quote]

We do not sin bying point out the error of your thinking processes.

If you can't admit the extent your world view shapes your philosophy, your facts are meaningless. Context is everything.

Edited January 5, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Don John of Austria]

I think it would be helpful to point out exactly how science and philosophy are joined. ( I have limited time so if I am not finished please feel free to add or elaborate )

The Philosophical presuppositions of science:
1 that the universe is knowable
( got to go, finish this later)

[Don John of Austria]

Further philosophical presuppositions of science:

2 that the senses are trust worthy
3 that the data collected from the senses is helpful in knowing the Universe.
4 that repetition of an event allows us to determine what is a"fact"
5 that That there are Laws of the Universe
6 that these laws are the same from place to place and from time to time
7 that by observing phenomena we can quantify and qualify these Laws
8 that "facts" are True.
9 that human knowledge is restricted by the ability to collect data not by the ability to understand them

[Don John of Austria]

9* that them shouldn't be there


10 that itis possible to costruct an experiment which does not currupt the data by the fact that it is an experiment.

There are more but I think that these are a good start, if any of you other guys see anything glaringly missing feel free to comment.

Mind you that these are just the supositions of Science that doesn't even begin to discuss the philosophic practices of science.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 5 2005, 04:04 PM'] There are more but I think that these are a good start, if any of you other guys see anything  glaringly missing feel free to comment.
[/quote]
I think that's a very good start, Don John, thanks!

What does #9 mean, though? "that them shouldn't be there"?

Edited January 5, 2005 by cathqat

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]
What does #9 mean, though? "that them shouldn't be there"? [/quote]


Oh if you look at my number 9 it says"9 that human knowledge is restricted by the ability to collect data not by the ability to understand them" it should more correctly read

9 that human knowledge is restricted by the ability to collect data not by the ability to understand it ( data being a collective noun it is actually correct to use [i]them[/i] or [i]it [/i]but [i]it[/i] is much more akin to what we normally hear)

[cathqat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 5 2005, 07:33 PM']

Oh if you look at my number 9 it says"9 that human knowledge is restricted by the ability to collect data not by the ability to understand them" it should more correctly read

9 that human knowledge is restricted by the ability to collect data not by the ability to understand it ( data being a collective noun it is actually correct to use [i]them[/i] or [i]it [/i]but [i]it[/i] is much more akin to what we normally hear) [/quote]
Oh, I see the whole #9 on the previous page now. The post with #10 also has "9* that them shouldn't be there," which didn't make sense. That must have been some sort of glitch? Oh well.

[Benedict]

I was personally attacked and I did not even get to see it.





That was a very nice list, Don John.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jan 5 2005, 06:53 AM']
We do not sin bying point out the error of your thinking processes.

If you can't admit the extent your world view shapes your philosophy, your facts are meaningless. Context is everything. [/quote]
That wasnt what u did though. Now u lied. Thats 2.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

You should take a class on, or at least read about, quantum mechanics and particle physics. Fascinating stuff. Just don't try to actually perform Schroedinger's Cat experiment. Of course, there's deeper philosophical stuff behind QM such as if I observe the energy state of an electron, the wavefunction of that electron collapses to a single state. However, what does an observation mean? Has the wavefunction collapsed yet if someone else makes the observation and I've yet to ask him what he observed? Now you get into stuff like many worlds theory. I've totally strayed from the original topic now, haven't I?

[Don John of Austria]

so phatmasser777 do you have anything meaningful to say, any thing countering any of those philosophical positions, anything?

[Don John of Austria]

Well I have a question for those moderate realist here. Are you contending that one must have a moderate realist approach to the uinderstanding of the Transubstatiation, if so ( this isn't an accusation just a query) would you justify that position.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Another question:

While I personally subscribe to the Thomistic metaphysic with regards to the transubstantiation, I was under the impression that it was unnecessary to do so, and that as long as one maintains that the bread and wine really and truly become the body and blood of Christ, your belief is in full communion with the Church.

Is that right?

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff