|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
 Posted - 10/11/2005 : 21:38:58
|
The length of my essay of sorts is too long to post here. Please go to
http://www.spaces.msn.com/members/alexsreid1981/
and view the Science and Philosophy theory. txs -ASR
|
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 22:12:31 [Permalink]
|
Too much shit to wade through. Most of what I could read there is disjointed and rambling. It seems like you might have been well into a long weekend of alcohol abuse when you wrote it. In a few minutes of poking through the material I couldn't find anything that appears to be any sort of argument against evolution.
You seem to be expecting people to go read your thoughts on that over bloated, hard to read blog site. The appropriate method of presenting your thoughts here is to, well, present your thoughts here. If you can summarize your thoughts right on this forum you'll probably find a lot more receptive audience.
And here's some unsolicited, but very valuable advice regarding Internet communications in general: You make an incorrect assumption that people out here in Internet land aren't already listening to their own choice of music at home. Why on earth do you think anyone might want to listen to yours? Your web page sucks. It's poorly designed and hard to read. Go take a look at Web Pages That Suck for some real good pointers about presenting material on the web in a form that isn't so offensive.
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 22:31:48 [Permalink]
|
Your argument against evolution is..... absent. Your rambling and incoherent gibberish doesn't make any coherent argument for, or against, anything....
Anyhow... any argument against evolution must somehow account for the evidence for evolution. You have alot of work ahead of you if you are planning on overturning evolution.
Evidences you need to somehow account for:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 23:32:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
The length of my essay of sorts is too long to post here. Please go to
http://www.spaces.msn.com/members/alexsreid1981/
and view the Science and Philosophy theory. txs -ASR
Hi ASR and welcome to SFN!
Ok, the philosophy part of all that was a bit over this old redneck's head, and I didn't see where it had much to do with evolution at all. So I'll only comment on the part about the ants being more successful than humans.
By what scale of measurement? Ants are far more ancient than ourselves, indeed, any mammal, and far more diverse -- there are thousands of species in South America alone, all occupying different niches. They evolved to fit into their niches just as did our species, but they are not more successful than any other, flourishing species today. Over time, a multitude of their species have died out and others risen to take their places. Further, the evolution of ants is often parallel -- the bulldog ant of Africa and the soldier ant of South America look and act a lot alike, but are entirely different animals. Species of the odd, little leaf-cutter ants were probably the world's first farmers and bear only a physical resembalance to others of the family. Some ants are herdsmen of aphids and others have symbotic relationships with the trees they live in. It might be noted that ant species are the ancestors of wasps.
We, on the other hand, are a very young, single species occupying many niches, and none of us has ever been eaten by an aardvark.
Evolutionary success is as evolutionary success does, and all things considered, we're doing ok. Whether we will continue to do ok remains to be seen, as it has yet to be demonstrated that sapience has any long-term, species survival value. Current events as well as our history would seem to argue against it....
At this point, it might be noted that most species of ant are far more aggressive than ourselves, even attacking others of their own species from different nests, no truces, no negotiations, no surrender.
Evolution has no goal. The only prize it promises in the competition of species is mere survival, and that's not guarenteed because environmental change accounts for the extinction of species far more than any, other cause. Our species has survived many radical changes that led to the extinction of many others, including species of ant.
Indeed, species of ant are dying out here in the states even as I write, due to competition and aggression from fire ants accidently imported from South America. Their environment has suffered a huge change that we scarcly notice.
All that said, I've little doubt that ants of one sort or another will be around to bid us hail and farewell when we saunter off into the void of extinction, which is the ultimate fate of all species. But it is concievable, even likely, that only a few of them will be the same species that we know today.
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 03:40:17 [Permalink]
|
You make some very strange statements in this... essay.
quote:
philosophy is the opposite, anything goes, there are no laws.
Now, if that were true, then there would be no such thing as philosophy. Philosophy is most definately subservient to laws - philosophical laws are just more universal and stronger than physical ones - of course, part of philosophy is the formulation of these laws. Most notable of these laws are the principles of logic; the identity principle, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. You will find a compelling, albeit not logically sufficient, argument for these laws in book alpha of Aristotle's 'Metaphysics'. The gist of it is that denying the laws of logic requires that you deny the existence of both truth and meaning, meaning that the denial itself is meaningless and thus the denial produces a false consequence.
That philosophy operates on logical principles is therefore undeniable. The way you imply that philosophy and logic are polar opposites is plainly wrong by anything resembling the common notion of philosophy and logic. Science, however, while still subservvient to the logical laws does not actually function on a strict logical basis. The primary forms of argument used in science are arguments by authority and inductive reasoning, neither of which are strictly logically correct.
Of course, you seem to be using a different notion of science than is generally meant:
quote:
Science as we see it today is false, true science is all things physical. Things are or they aren't (physics). True or false, yes or no.
This statement does not make a great deal of sense. You say that science is purely the judgement whether or not something is true or not. This contains several problems, firstly, science does not normally consider truth as such, truth is the problem of the philosopher. Science rather examines causal relationships from a pseudo-objective, hypothetical point of view (I say pseudo-objective because it is impossible to be properly objective). A scientist will never ask whether an object is true or not, the scientist will busy herself with discovering the laws that govern the behaviour of the object. You claim that who, what, where, when, how and why are all philosophical questions. This is incorrect, they are all questions for science as they relate to the principles by which objects behave and interact. The only exception is 'why?' which depending on context can be a question fro science or philosophy (in the context of general, subjective ethics).
You also speak of creativity, but fail to define it. This concept, uklike the idea of logic, is not clearly delineated. The meaning could be one of many things. Are you referring to creativity in the formal, reasoning sense of producing a new object through a synthesis of two concept? The classic example being Pegasus flying over the hills of Athens, pegasus being the synthesis of a horse and a bird as well as the merging of symbols for power and freedom. Or do you mean creativity in the more general sense of simply relating existing ideas together in ways they had not been related before? The questions that you assign to creativity seem to have very little to do with the idea. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
| Edited by - Subjectmatter on 10/12/2005 03:42:46 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 06:07:08 [Permalink]
|
Welcome ASR. You seem to write well as far as the mechanics go, but your thought processes and conclusions leave a bit to be desired - if you don't mind the critique.
Just looking at the first couple of lines of your essay-
quote:
Ants are more successful than humans.
What do you mean by more succesful? Is this just your opinion? And finally - so what.
quote:
Without emotion they formed societies and populated the earth.
Um.. so what.
quote:
Why did humans develop philosophy if it is not required for survival? The ideal soldier does not involve emotions in decisions because emotions hinder survival, why did evolution create something that does not aide survival?
I just plain disagree with this. The ideal soldier has a philosiphy that he is right and the enemy is wrong. He has the philosophy that God is on his side. He is fighting because he loves his country/society/family/ethnic background or whatever. Listen to that moron Bush - protect the homeland, God bless Americal, all that crap. You cannot motivate a person to risk death with out some powerful emotions.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 09:07:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You cannot motivate a person to risk death with out some powerful emotions.
Not true.
Logic works, for most people, just as well. It is entirely possible to reach a conclusion where risk of death is acceptable, without "powerfull emotions" being involved.
I know that my own stint in the military, with plenty of life-at-risk situations, wasn't motivated by any emotional appeal.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 09:17:53 [Permalink]
|
| The point ASR makes is invalid anyway; some kind of motivation is required, and most animals simply do not have our reasoning capabilities. In humans this motivation manifests itself as emotion; but emotion is really not a great deal more than a more advanced form of reflex. Useful, but not really what makes people special. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 09:19:30 [Permalink]
|
| I'm betting on a hit and run. I hope that I am wrong about that... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 09:28:11 [Permalink]
|
| Hit and run? Please elaborate, I don't understand what you mean... |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 09:33:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I know that my own stint in the military, with plenty of life-at-risk situations, wasn't motivated by any emotional appeal.
OK. Maybe it would have made more sense to say motivated by philosophical principles.
In the heat of battle the base instincts may be the most important, but to purposely put yourself in the line of fire by joining the military is based on your values or philosophy.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 09:48:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
Hit and run? Please elaborate, I don't understand what you mean...
It means he thinks ASR is just going to post once and not return. Often bloggers will log onto several message boards and post a link to their latest article in an attempt to generate buzz, but they have no intention of ever returning to discuss or debate it. It's just a "hit and run" post.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:02:45 [Permalink]
|
| Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:07:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that.
Not even close. Your main premise is seriously flawed.
In the case of Evolution, Science + Evidence + Logic = strong correlation. Not emotion. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:15:11 [Permalink]
|
Unfortunately the universe cannot be summed up in less than 4 words. Those concepts cannot be clearly defined and you cant make math out of thought and feeling, sorry.
Science (defined in my case as the laws of particle interaction in our observarable region of space) exists with or without humans. Humans are not vulcans and therefore will have emotions no matter how hard they try.
Oh and PS without hard evidence you wont find any takers here, we require data without philosophy mixed all up in it. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:31:09 [Permalink]
|
| Why can't a computer feel emotion? What thinking seperates us from computers? The human mind is considered the most advanced computer in the world, but we have philosophy... |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
