tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2370571674755424640..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: ReplicabilityRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52503266350867997552011-02-14T15:22:26.217-05:002011-02-14T15:22:26.217-05:00"Of course, this objection fundamentally misc..."Of course, this objection fundamentally misconceives the very nature of miracles."<br /><br />Very true, and definitely amusing. It reminds me of a teenager who once argued that a specific spy organization did not have a website they used to communicate, *because he looked for it and couldn't find it.*<br /><br />His whole argument was ridiculous - what kind of spy website would it be if someone could easily find it? Similarly, what kind of "miracle" would an event be if a human could replicate it anytime he wanted to??Skarlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15230867753054549982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24230040467472267152011-02-14T14:38:13.675-05:002011-02-14T14:38:13.675-05:00There're responses out there that address this...There're responses out there that address this; such as: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=8987<br /><br /><i>"Although Lehrer makes some good points, where he stumbles, from my perspective, is when he appears to conflate 'truth' with science or, more properly, accept the idea that there are scientific 'truths,' even going so far as to use the word in the title of his article. That is a profound misrepresentation of the nature of science, in which all 'truths' are provisional and all 'truths' are subject to revision based on evidence and experimentation. The decline effect–or, as Lehrer describes it the title of his article, the 'truth wearing off'–is nothing more than science doing what science does: Correcting itself."</i>Mr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14406571165782286452011-02-14T10:31:36.869-05:002011-02-14T10:31:36.869-05:00New Yorker Magazine: "If replication is what...<b>New Yorker Magazine</b>: <i>"If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved?"</i><br /><br />In the inbox of materialistic atheists?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73285592801435582952011-02-14T10:08:40.536-05:002011-02-14T10:08:40.536-05:00Steve said: " But there’s another problem int...Steve said: <b>" But there’s another problem internal to the objection, for the criterion of replicability is becoming an issue in contemporary science."</b><br /><br />.... which is why its fun to point out to 'scientists' that first-life (life from non-life) is also unreplicable and hence unscientific.<br /><br />It's funny that contemporary scientists can be so selective where they apply this.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.com