|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2005 : 12:17:44 [Permalink]
|
Behe will get to babble soon. Also blither, blather, bluster and gibber -- the Dover, PA. ID lawsuit got going on this very day.
Wathc the Panda's Thumb and Red State Rabble for continuing updates.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 12:24:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hello? If I point out a flaw, say, in the conclusions of a scientific experiment, am I required then to provide an alterate experiment to demonstrate that the first was flawed? Of course not.
Wrong again.
We've recently had a discussion on this particular topic... its in one of these folders someplace... heh.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 12:32:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie...
A 'proposal'? Evolution isn't presented as a 'proposal' at universities, it is presented as fact. And I hardly mind that really, because to me the genetic and fossil record very strongly suggests this very thing. What I object to is the presentation as 'fact' that blind mechanism is sufficient to explain it. Sure, 'propose' such a belief, but don't present it as if it's a scientific fact.
Theories are proposals. That's what peer review is all about. You may have misunderstood your instructors, or maybe they weren't very good at explaining it. You could have simply asked them if they were proposing this as an absolute unequivocal fact, or if there was room for some flexibility, review, and eventual modification of the theories. They would likely have responded that there are details in the sequence that are still not fully understood, therefore the theories are not carved in stone. They would also have likely recognized your lack of understanding of the scientific process and taken some time to explain it to you more thoroughly.quote:
Hello? If I point out a flaw, say, in the conclusions of a scientific experiment, am I required then to provide an alterate experiment to demonstrate that the first was flawed? Of course not.
If you propose another conclusion that you believe should be drawn, yes you do. You're suggesting that since there are parts of life's origin and evolution that are not completely explainable by science they might just as well be attributed to the magical powers of your imaginary friend. For your notion to be considered scientifically valid you'd need to demonstrate how it either fits within the current theories, or how it can be developed into a freestanding theory of its own.
Of course you realize you aren't supporting your case by continuing to show such a misunderstanding of the scientific process. But you can still redeem yourself in this regard. Since obviously you have some problems accepting the common contemporary theories, or at least have some trouble reconciling the 'gaps' by considering natural causes, how about proposing your own theory?quote:
Really, God consciousness is not too different than self consciousness, which we all experience I hope. I would roughly approximate God consciousness to be recognition of your highest thinking and an inner realization of and allignment with your most ideal thoughts.
It did make me chuckle, but that was one of the most meaningless rambling lines of gibberish you have yet interjected into this discussion. My comment, to which you didn't even remotely respond, was, "... if you also understand mythical beings, if you take them to be real, please define them and describe your theory to support their existence." But again, due to your obvious inability to grasp the scientific process, it was a pretty sure bet there wouldn't be a legitimate response. Care to try again?
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 12:36:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
We know of no phenomenon whatsoever which requires a non-naturalistic "intelligent mechanism" to explain. Why should we assume that some phenomenon (which one, we don't know) will require one?
I agree, science shouldn't assume as fact that a supernatural intelligent agent is required. But neither should it assume or propagate as fact that none is required. (This regards phenomeon for which we don't yet have a rigourous and coherent explanations for, like life.)
quote:
When we're talking about science, which studies the natural world, there's no evidence of anything supernatural. So why does that assertion seem false to you?
It is false, whether or not there is a supernatural. The assertion that science *knows* that only blind mechanism is responsible for life remains untrue.
quote:
I've been giving it some thought. Unfortunately, as I see it, higher realms of mind-spirt may be so nearly perfectly integrated with purely physical mechanism that it may be about impossible to scientifically extricate the actions of the one from the other.quote:
So, as far as science is concerned (you're saying), a world created by purely natural means would be indistinguishable from a world created by your "Great Architect." How would you explain that to a science class?
A world without the supernatural would be very different than the world we now observe imo. But the supernatural may so subtlely work within the small uncertainties apparently inherent in physical law, subtley enough that they can't be extricated. The supernatural might weigh the dice to particular results, lawfully. Yet in cumulation they would be results which are unlikely enough to be regarded as impossible by ordinary standards of blind chance. So I might explain in a class that certain outcomes *appear* to be highly fortuitous, and to interpret that as we philosophically see fit.
quote:
I believe that some species like man have reached the end of their potentials of further significant biological development.quote:
Why? What observations have led to that belief?
For one, it appears that man has not significantly changed morphologically in the last 30,000 years or so. That of course is too short for any sort of definitiveness by itself, but there are other rather non scientific things (which would be laughed at here) which I consider.
quote:
Seems I was wrong, but it's clear that viruses exist somewhere close to the border that separates life from non-life. Do you have a definition, yet?
I'm still thinking about it and will let you know. |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 14:01:41 [Permalink]
|
Siberia says: I spontaneously 'healed' (i.e., stopped feeling horrible pains that would make me cry of pain even if I kept absolutely still) from a bad hip degenation (carthilage cap basically ate itself). Why? How? I don't know, but it never bothered me (at least, not to that extent) again.
Here's one theory: perhaps the destruction spread to the nerve bundle that carries pain signals from the affected hip. |
trish |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 14:10:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]When we're talking about science, which studies the natural world, there's no evidence of anything supernatural. So why does that assertion seem false to you?
It is false, whether or not there is a supernatural. The assertion that science *knows* that only blind mechanism is responsible for life remains untrue.
But science doesn't assert that it knows only blind mechanisms are responsible for life. It assumes this in order to be able to actually do science. Certainly you can see the difference?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 15:01:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not aware of any species which we know has been around for a billion years.
quote:
Originally posted by markie:
Perhaps Archeobacteria (sp?) would about fit the bill.
As pointed out by Dave W., these are not species at all. Even if you take a single species of a today extant archeabacterium, it will not be the same species that existed millions or billions of years ago (even leaving aside any issues with how to actually classify a species that reproduces non-sexually). All archeans have been evolving since those times. Archea are considered ancient, not because its species are old, but because the last common ancestor to the two other domains of life (bacteria and eukaryotes) lived a long time ago. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 16:38:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
Siberia says: I spontaneously 'healed' (i.e., stopped feeling horrible pains that would make me cry of pain even if I kept absolutely still) from a bad hip degenation (carthilage cap basically ate itself). Why? How? I don't know, but it never bothered me (at least, not to that extent) again.
Here's one theory: perhaps the destruction spread to the nerve bundle that carries pain signals from the affected hip.
Possibly, but I can still feel it (a little) when it's cold. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 17:58:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originall posted by markie:
Hmmm, I'm saying that a Purely Unintelligent Mechanism theory cannot, by it's very nature, be falsified. Perhaps for that very reason it is not strictly scientific. The failure of PUM to 'explain' life, even after thousands of years of effort, would not falsify PUM but should (one would think) give one ample reason to doubt it.
So what would the failure of supernatural conjectures to accurately explain one single solitary thing since the dawn of time give one reason to think? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 19:47:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
We know of no phenomenon whatsoever which requires a non-naturalistic "intelligent mechanism" to explain. Why should we assume that some phenomenon (which one, we don't know) will require one?
I agree, science shouldn't assume as fact that a supernatural intelligent agent is required. But neither should it assume or propagate as fact that none is required.
Okay, let's run with this. Let's back up a few centuries and say we've become interested in the cause of lightning. Since we shouldn't, according to you, assume that supernatural agents aren't required for creating lightning, where do you suggest we begin looking for its cause? The Christian God? Odin? Zeus? The Giant Invisible Flintbangers? The possible starting points are endless.
Science, with its practical assumption of naturalism, suggests that we don't start with any of those, and instead look closer to home, first. If it so happens that we come across evidence of Zeus along our travels, we can run with that. But without evidence we shouldn't.quote:
(This regards phenomeon for which we don't yet have a rigourous and coherent explanations for, like life.)
Why? That's an illogical dividing line, obviously subject to change. 101 years ago, Brownian motion would have been included amongst phenomena "for which we don't yet have a rigorous and coherent explanations," but a year later, that was no longer true.
You're clearly describing a "god of the gaps," which will be forced to hide in smaller and smaller places as science provides more and more answers.
quote:
quote:
When we're talking about science, which studies the natural world, there's no evidence of anything supernatural. So why does that assertion seem false to you?
It is false, whether or not there is a supernatural. The assertion that science *knows* that only blind mechanism is responsible for life remains untrue.
Well, H. already nailed you on that point. The only person asserting that science asserts any such thing is you, right now. You may believe that your professors also asserted it, but I doubt you actually questioned them.
quote:
A world without the supernatural would be very different than the world we now observe imo.
If you can't support this opinion with evidence, it really isn't worth discussing in a scientific context. The world is the way it is, whether the supernatural exists or not.quote:
But the supernatural may so subtlely work within the small uncertainties apparently inherent in physical law, subtley enough that they can't be extricated. The supernatural might weigh the dice to particular results, lawfully. Yet in cumulation they would be results which are unlikely enough to be regarded as impossible by ordinary standards of blind chance. So I might explain in a class that certain outcomes *appear* to be highly fortuitous, and to interpret that as we philosophically see fit.
Ah, the old "blind chance" argument. It's a pity that scientists don't see nearly as much in the way of purely random stuff going on as you do. Sure, lots of individual genetic mutations may occur randomly, but selection pressures sure as hell aren't random at all. Neither is the way atoms come together to form molecules. Neither is gravity. Even quantum electrodynamics has limits to its probabilities. The vast majority of what we see is due to the action of regular laws, not "blind chance."quote:
For one, it appears that man has not significantly changed morphologically in the last 30,000 years or so.
What would you consider "significant?" The fact that a whole bunch of people have pale skin and blond hair (when 30,000 years ago, nobody like that existed) isn't significant? Plus, is the 30,000-year figure somehow significant, or was it just chosen arbitrarily?quote:
That of course is too short for any sort of definitiveness by itself, but there are other rather non scientific things (which would be laughed at here) which I consider.
Yeah, why would you bring non-scientific arguments to a discussion about science? Why would you even consider them to be worthwhile in making up your own mind about something scientific? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 01:39:47 [Permalink]
|
From The Panda's Thumb:
Our Intelligent Designer,
Who art in the unspecified-good-place,
Unknown be Thy name.
Thy flagella spin, Thy mousetraps snap,
On Earth, as it is in the
Unspecified-good-place.
Give us each day our unchecked apologetic.
And forgive us our invidious comparisons,
As we smite those iniquitous Darwinists
With rhetoric.
And lead us not into encounters with people
Who ask us to state our theory,
But deliver us from biologists
Who know what we're up to.
For Thine is the irreducible complexity,
And the wiggly parts of bacterial bottoms,
And the inapplicable theorems,
Now and forever.
Amen.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 08:15:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]When we're talking about science, which studies the natural world, there's no evidence of anything supernatural. So why does that assertion seem false to you?
It is false, whether or not there is a supernatural. The assertion that science *knows* that only blind mechanism is responsible for life remains untrue.
But science doesn't assert that it knows only blind mechanisms are responsible for life. It assumes this in order to be able to actually do science. Certainly you can see the difference?
Yes I can see it. Dave mentioned something similar when he distinguished philosphical naturalism from practical naturalism. I just wish that even 'practical naturalism' wouldn't appear to insist that there is nothing else. Must science assume there is *nothing* supernatural in order to do good science? I don't think that is necessary. (But I certainly realize that in the *particulars* which are actually being researched, working assumptions of natural mechanism are required.) And neither should it assume there is something supernatural going on. If even after thousands of years science cannot rigourously explain how something can be 'alive', it should remain, to science, as simply 'unknown in aspects'. IDers err when they insist that *science* should then conclude that the unknown is supernatural. Tsk
But the amazing thing to me is that biological sciences really do teach *as if* life's explanation *were* already known, which is simply false. Personally I think the radical religious backlash from IDers is in part a result of *perceived* "naturalism explains it all" attitude coming from many classrooms. It would help immensely imo if the "it's not clear" or "we're not sure" or "we don't know" was more forthcoming.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 08:43:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Must science assume there is *nothing* supernatural in order to do good science? I don't think that is necessary.
Science must assume that the answers it seeks will be found through solid evidence, valid logic and repeatable experiments. Since the supernatural admits to none of these things, science cannot begin to establish any knowledge of it.quote:
If even after thousands of years science cannot rigourously explain how something can be 'alive', it should remain, to science, as simply 'unknown in aspects'.
Modern science has been investigating this question for less than 100 years.quote:
But the amazing thing to me is that biological sciences really do teach *as if* life's explanation *were* already known, which is simply false.
I still doubt this. If you'd care to quote a textbook which says that, I'd be willing to change my mind. But right now, I think you're misunderstanding that undergraduate science classes necessarily give only a basic overview of most subjects, and what you'd hear about life's explanation will change from year to year. Because if you actually look at what the biological sciences have to say in detail (like, within the primary literature of the biology journals), it's all "our current thinking is that life began by..."quote:
Personally I think the radical religious backlash from IDers is in part a result of *perceived* "naturalism explains it all" attitude coming from many classrooms. It would help immensely imo if the "it's not clear" or "we're not sure" or "we don't know" was more forthcoming.
Those things should be taught in any basic science class (in high school, for example). Any statement made in a later class implicitly includes "we're fairly certain that this is the way things work, but it could change tomorrow." Stripping the more-advanced classes from the context of the philosophy of science is where the mistake lies, and it's not a mistake being made by the science educators.
Even if all scientists were to re-teach basic scientific assumptions every time they made a statement to a student or the public, it won't help dispell the rancor of those who say that without God being explicitly included, the sciences are bereft of value. They're only starting with evolution. If they succeed, they will next jam God into geology (so-called "Flood geology"), and then they'll move on to astronomy, cosmology and physics in general. For these people, if science doesn't glorify Jesus, then it must be a tool of Satan.
Besides which, given the rising number of anti-ID articles being written in newspapers and non-scientific magazines, the backlash against ID is already beginning. People are fed up with the obvious lies, and are reclaiming science due to all the good it's done, regardless of what you feel about its basic assumptions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 09:25:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Of course you realize you aren't supporting your case by continuing to show such a misunderstanding of the scientific process. But you can still redeem yourself in this regard. Since obviously you have some problems accepting the common contemporary theories, or at least have some trouble reconciling the 'gaps' by considering natural causes, how about proposing your own theory?
My own theory is in progress and woefully imcomplete in the details. And it involves assumptions which science just could not work with (like apriori mind-spirit fields), so it belongs more in a religious or metaphysical context rather than a scientific one. (Even though it is as far as I know consistent with empirical science.)
quote:
It did make me chuckle, but that was one of the most meaningless rambling lines of gibberish you have yet interjected into this discussion. My comment, to which you didn't even remotely respond, was, "... if you also understand mythical beings, if you take them to be real, please define them and describe your theory to support their existence." But again, due to your obvious inability to grasp the scientific process, it was a pretty sure bet there wouldn't be a legitimate response. Care to try again?
Well I'm glad it made you laugh at least. Laughing can be healthy. To answer your question, I really have little handle on sub Deity superphysical beings except the little I happen to believe from some sources. I have less of a handle on Deity, in any explanatory way. Deity has me under the microscope so to speak, not the other way around.
Really all I'm saying is that any attempt to detect superphysical beings in any scientifically satisfactory way is probably futile. Even so, it is not futile to begin realizing God's presence in the mind. While God cannot be scientifically detected, he can be experienced, at least to my experience.
All I can propose is the 'inner experiment' which involves sincere questing for God, to find him. I concur with Jesus, "the kingdom of God is within". No outer experiment will confirm God, but the inner one may, but that's out of science's range. That's all I'm saying about this on this thread.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 09:48:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Originally posted by markie:
Hmmm, I'm saying that a Purely Unintelligent Mechanism theory cannot, by it's very nature, be falsified. Perhaps for that very reason it is not strictly scientific. The failure of PUM to 'explain' life, even after thousands of years of effort, would not falsify PUM but should (one would think) give one ample reason to doubt it.
So what would the failure of supernatural conjectures to accurately explain one single solitary thing since the dawn of time give one reason to think?
If a conjecture that is based on the supernatural fails in a material prediction, then it is reasonable to say it is false. However I'm not sure that *all* conjectures having a supernatural basis have thus failed.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
