Apologetics to the Glory of God

Category: Science

  • Science Is Guesswork

    A recent visitor to Choosing Hats who goes by the name “noen” made a few comments which imply that he does not believe the material on the site is up to his ‘standards’. For example in response to the post here he wrote, “Not really impressed” and “The argument is without merit”. Of course I doubt that the post was written with the intention of impressing noen, and he merely asserts that “the argument” (it is unclear what argument he is referring to) is “without merit” but never explains why he thinks this way.

    He also commented here to ask, …

  • Knapp’s “Induction and the Unbeliever”

    Recently the “Bahnsen Burner” Dawson Bethrick took a swing at  Choosing Hats founder and administrator Brian Knapp’s contribution to The Portable Presuppositionalist as a part of his ongoing attempt to provide an answer to the Problem of Induction from within the confines of the Objectivist worldview. Mr. Bethrick quotes from page 124 of Knapp’s “Induction and the Unbeliever” in The Portable Presuppostionalist where Knapp asks, “Why do you believe nature is uniform, and how is that belief rationally justified?” Bethrick begins to provide an answer early in his post as follows:

    [N]ature is uniform on its own, independent of

  • David Hume Is Rolling In His Grave

    The “Bahnsen Burner” Dawson Bethrick is busy writing a number of posts concerning the Problem of Induction that I discussed with him some time ago. In his most recent post Mr. Bethrick repeats where he thinks David Hume went wrong on induction thus allegedly setting himself up for a future post on how Objectivism rids itself of the so-called “problem” of induction. Setting aside a number of mistakes in his exegesis of Hume Mr. Bethrick shows that his last thread of hope in the area of induction will not hold the weight he wants to place on it.

    Objectivists constantly …

  • Science Is Not That Simple (Part 3)

    Part 1
    Part 2

    Chalmers also challenges the idea that facts provide a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge. This argument falls in line with the other arguments.

    Further difficulties concerning the reliability of the observational basis of science arise from some of the ways in which judgments about the adequacy of observation statements draw on presupposed knowledge in a way that renders those judgments fallible.1

    Chalmers uses the example of Aristotle’s idea that fire is a substance. Fire was observed, and it could be seen rising into the air so that it seemed accurate to say that fire …

  • Science Is Not That Simple (Part 2)

    (For the first part of Science Is Not That Simple click here.)

    Chalmers argues against the common idea that facts precede and are separate from theory. Chalmers starts his argument out against this common idea by explaining the ambiguity of the term “fact”.

    It can refer to a statement that expresses the fact and it can also refer to the state of affairs referred to by such a statement.  For example, it is a fact that there are mountains and craters on the moon.  Here the fact can be taken as referring to the mountains or craters themselves.  Alternatively,

  • Science Is Not That Simple

    Science is often thought of as involving facts that are directly given to unprejudiced observers through their senses, facts that precede and are independent of theory, and facts that provide a firm basis for scientific knowledge. A.F. Chalmers argues against these widely accepted ideas. 

    It is widely believed that facts concerning the world around us come to us directly through the senses.  This would lead us to believe that observing the world around us and recording what is seen or otherwise experienced through the senses is all there is to observation.  In this way it is thought, what is seen …

  • Is 2+2=4 just ink on paper?


    There is truth outside of Scripture sure, but most of it can’t be proven. There are only those things which can be scientifically proven. (1) It must be physical (touchable visible), (2) able to be observed, and (3) able to be repeated. If anything does not include these three things then we don’t know whether it is true.
    We believe the Bible because it is God’s word-and everything God says is true because God is righteous, although we have no proof that there is a God – we have faith. So archeology is our only proof of the Bible.…