Creation vs. Evolution
Thursday, September 11, 2003 by grayhaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I thought I'd pre-empt this discussion before Kona's comment in the other thread sparked it off there. There is concrete proof that we evolved, but no proof that we were created. What's you're opinion, and why?
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
 |
|
Page 25 of 56 | |
|
|---|
KarmaGirl
Reply #483 Friday, September 19, 2003 9:34 AM
Reply #483 Friday, September 19, 2003 9:34 AM
For some reason, I thought of this thread when I saw this:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/19/guinea.pig.ap/index.html
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #484 Friday, September 19, 2003 10:08 AM
Reply #484 Friday, September 19, 2003 10:08 AM
That is some guinea pig! If you were keeping pets around 3000000 years ago you would have needed a big cage for that one...
bakerstreet
Reply #485 Friday, September 19, 2003 11:41 AM
Reply #485 Friday, September 19, 2003 11:41 AM
Gah, Jeez. A few people here are really matter-of-fact. Might need to go look up the definition of 'fact'.
Like I said the last time, unless anyone here has done the work themselves *everyone* here is working on faith. Some people have faith in God, others in what Scientists of various fields assert. Anthropologists have a hard job, I don't suppose any of us would imagine ourselves schooled enough to check over their work for mistakes, so we take them on-faith. Not dissing either side, but don't lay too harsh a line on Kona for believing what a book tells him when almost certainly everyone else here gets *all* of their information about evolution from books as well. Heck, i just recently learned from Jafo that Australia was a hoax, itself.
**
My real reason for posting is in response to pictoratus's post a couple of pages back:
"Actually, the Cherokee had a language with written symbols long before white men came to America. Not exactly writing as we know it but, then again, neither is Chinese."
Unfortunately, that's untrue to the best of my knowledge. Sequoyah devised the written cherokee alphabet in 1809. Previous to this Native Americans only recorded their history in representative art, all of which were only cues for people who knew the stories. I am unaware of any form of writing that allowed the reader to read a story in detail without someone witness to the oral tradition being there to for interpretation. So we have little or no recorded history from pre-columbian times. Dad was a digger, and I wandered toward Native American history several times in college. Sad thing.
Cheers, back to the grunting and bashing.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
Like I said the last time, unless anyone here has done the work themselves *everyone* here is working on faith. Some people have faith in God, others in what Scientists of various fields assert. Anthropologists have a hard job, I don't suppose any of us would imagine ourselves schooled enough to check over their work for mistakes, so we take them on-faith. Not dissing either side, but don't lay too harsh a line on Kona for believing what a book tells him when almost certainly everyone else here gets *all* of their information about evolution from books as well. Heck, i just recently learned from Jafo that Australia was a hoax, itself.
**
My real reason for posting is in response to pictoratus's post a couple of pages back:
"Actually, the Cherokee had a language with written symbols long before white men came to America. Not exactly writing as we know it but, then again, neither is Chinese."
Unfortunately, that's untrue to the best of my knowledge. Sequoyah devised the written cherokee alphabet in 1809. Previous to this Native Americans only recorded their history in representative art, all of which were only cues for people who knew the stories. I am unaware of any form of writing that allowed the reader to read a story in detail without someone witness to the oral tradition being there to for interpretation. So we have little or no recorded history from pre-columbian times. Dad was a digger, and I wandered toward Native American history several times in college. Sad thing.
Cheers, back to the grunting and bashing.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
paxx
Reply #486 Friday, September 19, 2003 12:14 PM
Reply #486 Friday, September 19, 2003 12:14 PM
BakerStreet, the difference is that for science, it can be verified.
The Scientific Method requires that it can be verified and reproduced by anybody. By anybody of course, I mean somebody who has enough knowledge to understand how the heck it works. But if you have a friend who knows a lot about a specific science, you can ask him to verify.
The same can't be said about the Bible.
About the American Indians, indeed I had learned in Anthropology class that they didn't have writting. Thus the notion that Pre-History relates to before coming of writting would mean that American Indians were prehistoric, which of course is ridiculous. So that's why Anthropologists don't define Pre-History that way anymore.
bakerstreet
Reply #487 Friday, September 19, 2003 2:02 PM
Reply #487 Friday, September 19, 2003 2:02 PM
Paxx: no, sorry. You don't have the expertise to second guess anthropologists. You don't have the equipment needed to do C14 tests, you don't have the background in primate physiology to come to a comparative conclusion about our relationship with them. If you did, you wouldn't have the time in a single lifetime to do all the work needed to verify all the previous work. You simply have *faith* that those who *do* claim to have such expertise do so in an objective and professional way, and interpret their findings correctly. You, like me and everyone else here, got their understanding of evolution from a book.
It is odd to hear you assume you *know* something when you, yourself have rattled at me constantly not to state that I *know* that what I read in the press is Fact (capital 'F'). Published science is just as biased and self-serving as the press, if not worse. People die all the time because Medical Science is mistaken about something or other, most of which was well-researched. You think prehistoric anthropology is held to the same tolerance as medical research?
SO, it isn't much different for kona than you, he simply places his faith in a different book. Many people who read Hitler's rhetoric had a different view of the world than both of you, and they *knew* it to be true just as much as you two. Most of Hitler's ideas were backed up by scientists. It is intellectually perilous to be so vehement based on what someone tells you. Kona is practically roasting on the stake in this conversation based upon little more than educational hearsay. Why not let him believe and stfu? I think you have handled yourself well Paxx, but a couple of people here seem to have learned debate from the spanish inquisition. Odd how we emulate what we hate.
**
As far as pre-history, i don't know what you mean. Didn't know it had been brought up. "History" generally refers to the entire body of human history, so saying Native Americans as a whole were pre-historic is false, though some obviously were here during what we think of as pre-history.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
It is odd to hear you assume you *know* something when you, yourself have rattled at me constantly not to state that I *know* that what I read in the press is Fact (capital 'F'). Published science is just as biased and self-serving as the press, if not worse. People die all the time because Medical Science is mistaken about something or other, most of which was well-researched. You think prehistoric anthropology is held to the same tolerance as medical research?
SO, it isn't much different for kona than you, he simply places his faith in a different book. Many people who read Hitler's rhetoric had a different view of the world than both of you, and they *knew* it to be true just as much as you two. Most of Hitler's ideas were backed up by scientists. It is intellectually perilous to be so vehement based on what someone tells you. Kona is practically roasting on the stake in this conversation based upon little more than educational hearsay. Why not let him believe and stfu? I think you have handled yourself well Paxx, but a couple of people here seem to have learned debate from the spanish inquisition. Odd how we emulate what we hate.
**
As far as pre-history, i don't know what you mean. Didn't know it had been brought up. "History" generally refers to the entire body of human history, so saying Native Americans as a whole were pre-historic is false, though some obviously were here during what we think of as pre-history.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
joetheblow
Reply #488 Friday, September 19, 2003 3:27 PM
Reply #488 Friday, September 19, 2003 3:27 PM
I am pretty sure when it comes to relious text it is more about a guide and stories then provability.
As far as God is concerned proof depends o who you ask.
I say that anyone who claims to exist in this Universe, whether created or evolved, falls under the rules and laws of this Universe.
Therefor the Universe is our God. Now, was this God self creating or did it just happen? Is it intellegent or a non-life form as we know of so far?
Creation or Evolution... Chicken before the egg... who knows if all this was created to be evolution?
As far as God is concerned proof depends o who you ask.
I say that anyone who claims to exist in this Universe, whether created or evolved, falls under the rules and laws of this Universe.
Therefor the Universe is our God. Now, was this God self creating or did it just happen? Is it intellegent or a non-life form as we know of so far?
Creation or Evolution... Chicken before the egg... who knows if all this was created to be evolution?
Matt Janx
Reply #489 Friday, September 19, 2003 3:42 PM
Reply #489 Friday, September 19, 2003 3:42 PM
I don't really believe in God. But a friend of mine argued with me using this sort of thing him and his uncle found out about. Now, it's something like...God created the Earth in 6 days was it? 7? Well apparently, scientists have found plutonium halos (rings) deep within the Earth's crust. So I was like "What's that got to do with anything?" So then he starts saying "Well Plutonium is highly explosive, the Earth was molten lava when this stuff was settled, The Earth would have exploded collosively, the only way this could've happened, is if the Earth was cooled down instantly. This would be a process within those 6/7 days of creation." Now, I must admit, even though this still doesn't convince me, I still think it's quite valid.
MadIce
Reply #490 Friday, September 19, 2003 6:36 PM
Reply #490 Friday, September 19, 2003 6:36 PM
This is how I see it. One cannot of course know everything science came up with. It helps if a software engineer knows a little about hardware, but he doesn't have to be a hardware engineer to do the job. But if he wanted he could verify it by studying that part of computer science. That's important. It is different from religion. It cannot be verified. Although there seems to be a scientist around (Frank Tipler) who claims that the answers to "Does God exist?", "Do we as human beings have free will?" and "Is there life after death?" are probably "yes". As far as I know his underlying theory (the Omega Point Theory) hasn't been proved yet. And after he or others have done so it can be verified. But now it is merely speculation.
kona0197
Reply #491 Friday, September 19, 2003 7:30 PM
hence the reason i quit trying to prove my point.
Reply #491 Friday, September 19, 2003 7:30 PM
| Kona is practically roasting on the stake in this conversation |
hence the reason i quit trying to prove my point.
eieio
Reply #492 Friday, September 19, 2003 8:11 PM
Thanks, bakerstreet.
I had been under the impression, since I was a kid, that the Cherokee had symbols that stood for specific things, events, families, etc. There was an old man I knew that hunted Indian artifacts and he used to show me the things he found ... arrowheads, tools, pottery. He said he could recognize the symbols on a lot of the pottery as belonging to certain groups or tribes as they used symbols and patterns to designate different things.
I suppose that's not really what could be considered a written language, though.
Reply #492 Friday, September 19, 2003 8:11 PM
| Sequoyah devised the written cherokee alphabet in 1809. Previous to this Native Americans only recorded their history in representative art, all of which were only cues for people who knew the stories. I am unaware of any form of writing that allowed the reader to read a story in detail without someone witness to the oral tradition being there to for interpretation. |
Thanks, bakerstreet.
I had been under the impression, since I was a kid, that the Cherokee had symbols that stood for specific things, events, families, etc. There was an old man I knew that hunted Indian artifacts and he used to show me the things he found ... arrowheads, tools, pottery. He said he could recognize the symbols on a lot of the pottery as belonging to certain groups or tribes as they used symbols and patterns to designate different things.
I suppose that's not really what could be considered a written language, though.
paxx
Reply #493 Friday, September 19, 2003 8:15 PM
Reply #493 Friday, September 19, 2003 8:15 PM
So, Bakerstreet, are you in all honesty saying that, say Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, have the same truthfull value as any scientific article?
I know Descartes said we should do Tabula Raza (clear table), ie: forget everything we know, take nothing, nothing at all for granted and start thinking from scratch with no preconceived ideas... But there is a limit.
So the earth may not be round after all? I've never been in space to verify.
You mean maybe Middle Earth actually exists, and there actually could be orcs somewhere down around Mordor, and Elves in Riverdale? I've only really visited a few places on the planet, so I couldn't say for sure that having been everywhere they don't exist.
Hum, maybe next time I take a walk in the woods I should be careful not to step on a Smurf or two...
paxx
Reply #494 Friday, September 19, 2003 8:21 PM
Reply #494 Friday, September 19, 2003 8:21 PM
And about prehistory. When I was a kid, in elementary school, we learned that the line between pre-history and history is the written records. History is recorded by writting, while prehistory predates writting. Hense, it was simply said that History begins (and Pre-History ends) when writting started to be used.
But in College, in an introduction to Anthropology class, the teacher told us that this could not be described that way, since the American natives did not know writting. Saying that everything that isn't written is prehistoric is basically saying that American indians are prehistoric. Which is nonsense, of course. That's all I was saying.
I'm not sure how they make the difference between prehistory and history now, but it's not related to the ability to read and write.
But in College, in an introduction to Anthropology class, the teacher told us that this could not be described that way, since the American natives did not know writting. Saying that everything that isn't written is prehistoric is basically saying that American indians are prehistoric. Which is nonsense, of course. That's all I was saying.
I'm not sure how they make the difference between prehistory and history now, but it's not related to the ability to read and write.
Aleatoric
Reply #495 Friday, September 19, 2003 9:22 PM
Reply #495 Friday, September 19, 2003 9:22 PM
paxx,
I'm an orc
The concept of proof is different on a practical or scientific level and on a philosophical level.
There may be a valid philosophical point about the categorical existence of proof as an absolute quality, but that isn't necessary to establish a reasonable level of effective proof.
While one can make the argument that if I have not duplicated the entire effort of some other person, then my acceptance of the results they reach constitutes a matter of faith. This may be literally true, in that I have confidence in the system under which the results were obtained. From a practical basis, whether I have actually undertaken the effort to duplicate the process leading up to the results, the important point is that I could do so, and that others *have* done so. That is the value of the system in which those results are obtained.
There is an immense practical value in the concept of proof. There is nothing about the concept of proof that, in and of itself, is invalidated by the idea that it can be philosophically categorized as ephemeral.
Often, the veracity of the concept of proof is challenged by those who cannot produce proof for their particular worldview or desire, and who therefore attempt to hold the whole concept of proof in question as a means of obtaining some validity for their ideas.
For example, I can prove that electromagnetic fields exist, both from a logical analysis of the phenomena, and from the fact that those fields are applied to objects that have a very real, everyday existence.
The avenue of proof does become somewhat more arguable when applied to events where there is some evidence to examine, but little or no other context in which to examine that evidence, except the suppositions based on other knowledge of similar context.
Evolution and anthropology *do* fall into that category, in that we have a body of evidence, but the determination of what that evidence means is subject to speculation and extrapolation of our current understanding of the context in which they exist (and are found). The thing is, no reputable scientist will categorize that framework as 'proof'. I can, as a scientist, prove that a computer, for example, exists, and that it is made possible due to an underlying framework of electromagnetic physics and logic. And therefore, by extension, we can 'prove' that the framework itself exists.
I cannot, however, prove that natural selection is the mechanism that fully explains the evidence that supports the concept of evolution. That's why it's a theory, rather than an axiom or a proof.
However, from a scientific standpoint, the evidence for the above is sufficiently strong to provide a functional framework for study, and a meaningful explanation for the course of events. It may not be declarative proof, but in the same fashion that the existence of computers (for example) establishes the correctness of our framework for electromagnetic theory, the benefits that we accrue in terms of genetic study and understanding of life establishes that the scientific theory of evolution is a useful theory that can be applied with concrete results. That may not be philosophical proof, but it is practical proof.
If it turns out that our framework is incomplete, we will adapt it to suit. But that doesn't mean that the framework is useless, even if we adapt it later.
To provide another example, Einstein's theories of special and general relativity subsume Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. That does not mean that Newton's laws are useless, as they are quite accurate in the vast majority of cases that we examine, it is only in the extreme reaches of motion and gravitation that Newton fails and Einstein is then needed.
I'm an orc
The concept of proof is different on a practical or scientific level and on a philosophical level.
There may be a valid philosophical point about the categorical existence of proof as an absolute quality, but that isn't necessary to establish a reasonable level of effective proof.
While one can make the argument that if I have not duplicated the entire effort of some other person, then my acceptance of the results they reach constitutes a matter of faith. This may be literally true, in that I have confidence in the system under which the results were obtained. From a practical basis, whether I have actually undertaken the effort to duplicate the process leading up to the results, the important point is that I could do so, and that others *have* done so. That is the value of the system in which those results are obtained.
There is an immense practical value in the concept of proof. There is nothing about the concept of proof that, in and of itself, is invalidated by the idea that it can be philosophically categorized as ephemeral.
Often, the veracity of the concept of proof is challenged by those who cannot produce proof for their particular worldview or desire, and who therefore attempt to hold the whole concept of proof in question as a means of obtaining some validity for their ideas.
For example, I can prove that electromagnetic fields exist, both from a logical analysis of the phenomena, and from the fact that those fields are applied to objects that have a very real, everyday existence.
The avenue of proof does become somewhat more arguable when applied to events where there is some evidence to examine, but little or no other context in which to examine that evidence, except the suppositions based on other knowledge of similar context.
Evolution and anthropology *do* fall into that category, in that we have a body of evidence, but the determination of what that evidence means is subject to speculation and extrapolation of our current understanding of the context in which they exist (and are found). The thing is, no reputable scientist will categorize that framework as 'proof'. I can, as a scientist, prove that a computer, for example, exists, and that it is made possible due to an underlying framework of electromagnetic physics and logic. And therefore, by extension, we can 'prove' that the framework itself exists.
I cannot, however, prove that natural selection is the mechanism that fully explains the evidence that supports the concept of evolution. That's why it's a theory, rather than an axiom or a proof.
However, from a scientific standpoint, the evidence for the above is sufficiently strong to provide a functional framework for study, and a meaningful explanation for the course of events. It may not be declarative proof, but in the same fashion that the existence of computers (for example) establishes the correctness of our framework for electromagnetic theory, the benefits that we accrue in terms of genetic study and understanding of life establishes that the scientific theory of evolution is a useful theory that can be applied with concrete results. That may not be philosophical proof, but it is practical proof.
If it turns out that our framework is incomplete, we will adapt it to suit. But that doesn't mean that the framework is useless, even if we adapt it later.
To provide another example, Einstein's theories of special and general relativity subsume Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. That does not mean that Newton's laws are useless, as they are quite accurate in the vast majority of cases that we examine, it is only in the extreme reaches of motion and gravitation that Newton fails and Einstein is then needed.
joetheblow
Reply #496 Friday, September 19, 2003 9:39 PM
Reply #496 Friday, September 19, 2003 9:39 PM
... well, I don't know about yall, but I am ready to go out and catch a movie.
I've been dieing to see "Fighting Temptations" for a week now.
to me, this thread was a pretty nice discussion. It even brought out Bakerstreet to post.
You can't get a better debate when paxx and Bakerstreet come on.
I've been dieing to see "Fighting Temptations" for a week now.
to me, this thread was a pretty nice discussion. It even brought out Bakerstreet to post.
You can't get a better debate when paxx and Bakerstreet come on.
bakerstreet
Reply #497 Friday, September 19, 2003 9:42 PM
Reply #497 Friday, September 19, 2003 9:42 PM
Paxx: what i was saying was not necessarily for you to begin with. There are a class of people here telling Kona that he is stupid for staking his spiritual life on some "book". Those same people are using as their evidence both for what they believe and against what kona believes things that they themselves know only from books.
Hitler and people who espoused his philosophy had scientific documentation for almost everything they believed, much of which touched upon the scientific fields we are discussing. Now, they are considered evil. "Because a Scientist says so." is enough to make an informed *personal* decision, but I look pretty derisively on all these people quoting high-end Anthropologists and then making fun of Kona's blind "faith". They are relying it as well. They are placing as much faith in the people who taught them Evolution as Kona is in the Bible.
Tolkien never asserted that Middle Earth was real. Science continually asserts "truths" that later have to be revised or completely discarded. I have no problem placing my faith in Science, but I'm not gonna pretend I am any more accurate quantitatively as to my beliefs than the average Scientologist.
Hitler and people who espoused his philosophy had scientific documentation for almost everything they believed, much of which touched upon the scientific fields we are discussing. Now, they are considered evil. "Because a Scientist says so." is enough to make an informed *personal* decision, but I look pretty derisively on all these people quoting high-end Anthropologists and then making fun of Kona's blind "faith". They are relying it as well. They are placing as much faith in the people who taught them Evolution as Kona is in the Bible.
Tolkien never asserted that Middle Earth was real. Science continually asserts "truths" that later have to be revised or completely discarded. I have no problem placing my faith in Science, but I'm not gonna pretend I am any more accurate quantitatively as to my beliefs than the average Scientologist.
Aleatoric
Reply #498 Friday, September 19, 2003 10:59 PM
Reply #498 Friday, September 19, 2003 10:59 PM
BakerStreet,
I agree that it is wrong to call someone stupid (or imply it) because they place faith in the bible. Nor am I arguing any such position in my defenses of science and evolution (not sure if I would be included in the class of people to which you allude, but I'll respond anyway
). As I've stated before, I believe in God as well, and that is clearly a matter of faith, and as a result, I have respect for the faith of others as well ( I don't believe in the same fashion as others, but that does not diminish my respect for their faith).
That said, it is disingenous to argue that faith in the bible and faith in science are equally interpretable.
While there is a fair body of historical and archaelogical evidence for many of the events in the bible, the fundamental precept of the purpose of the bible is that God exists and has set the text as rules for life. The thing is that the matter of God is ENTIRELY a matter of faith. God is not a provable (or disprovable concept).
Science, on the other hand, is predicated entirely on the concept that the things that it examines can be observed, hypothesized about, supported or not, and so on.
The primary difference is that if someone makes a claim to me about science (whether personally, or in a book), I can, at least IN PRINCIPLE, duplicate the effort or experiments or theories that they did (or claim to hold true), and verify or not the specific results that are presented. I can then make an empirical judgement of the accuracy of their claims.
Where God is concerned, there is no such recourse. Any statement or text that is produced to support any given claim to God's will can be equally used to make a different claim, or some other statement or text can be produced that can make a different claim (and that is only within the bible, let alone if we include the religious texts of all faiths).
There is no other recourse but to use faith, exclusively, as a test for my understanding of God.
That science contains many subjects that are replete with individual interpretations of evidence, and that have no clear cut process that can be used to substantiate, as a whole, the subject of those interpretations, I won't deny.
However, the body of science is subject to the premise that there is a process that can be performed by independent parties and the results of that process can be clearly and independently determined to conform or not conform to the claims presented. God can only be a matter of faith, at least in our current level of understanding.
God and science are two different things, and are not in conflict. God is the creator of the universe and architect of our being. He presents us with an environment in which there are mysteries to explore and puzzles to solve, and He gave us minds that are designed to desire the exploration of those mysteries. He gave us the ability to design and use tools in our efforts to examine and understand the world around us. Science is one of those tools. Just as our use of hammers and drills and computers does not engender the same kind of faith tht we have in God, neither does our use of science correspond to the same level of faith.
I agree that it is wrong to call someone stupid (or imply it) because they place faith in the bible. Nor am I arguing any such position in my defenses of science and evolution (not sure if I would be included in the class of people to which you allude, but I'll respond anyway
). As I've stated before, I believe in God as well, and that is clearly a matter of faith, and as a result, I have respect for the faith of others as well ( I don't believe in the same fashion as others, but that does not diminish my respect for their faith).That said, it is disingenous to argue that faith in the bible and faith in science are equally interpretable.
While there is a fair body of historical and archaelogical evidence for many of the events in the bible, the fundamental precept of the purpose of the bible is that God exists and has set the text as rules for life. The thing is that the matter of God is ENTIRELY a matter of faith. God is not a provable (or disprovable concept).
Science, on the other hand, is predicated entirely on the concept that the things that it examines can be observed, hypothesized about, supported or not, and so on.
The primary difference is that if someone makes a claim to me about science (whether personally, or in a book), I can, at least IN PRINCIPLE, duplicate the effort or experiments or theories that they did (or claim to hold true), and verify or not the specific results that are presented. I can then make an empirical judgement of the accuracy of their claims.
Where God is concerned, there is no such recourse. Any statement or text that is produced to support any given claim to God's will can be equally used to make a different claim, or some other statement or text can be produced that can make a different claim (and that is only within the bible, let alone if we include the religious texts of all faiths).
There is no other recourse but to use faith, exclusively, as a test for my understanding of God.
That science contains many subjects that are replete with individual interpretations of evidence, and that have no clear cut process that can be used to substantiate, as a whole, the subject of those interpretations, I won't deny.
However, the body of science is subject to the premise that there is a process that can be performed by independent parties and the results of that process can be clearly and independently determined to conform or not conform to the claims presented. God can only be a matter of faith, at least in our current level of understanding.
God and science are two different things, and are not in conflict. God is the creator of the universe and architect of our being. He presents us with an environment in which there are mysteries to explore and puzzles to solve, and He gave us minds that are designed to desire the exploration of those mysteries. He gave us the ability to design and use tools in our efforts to examine and understand the world around us. Science is one of those tools. Just as our use of hammers and drills and computers does not engender the same kind of faith tht we have in God, neither does our use of science correspond to the same level of faith.
IPlural
Reply #499 Saturday, September 20, 2003 12:45 AM
Reply #499 Saturday, September 20, 2003 12:45 AM
It all comes down to what you hold as truth, which is sujective to say the least.
bakerstreet
Reply #500 Saturday, September 20, 2003 1:05 AM
Reply #500 Saturday, September 20, 2003 1:05 AM
Aleatoric :
"I can, at least IN PRINCIPLE, duplicate the effort or experiments or theories that they did (or claim to hold true), and verify or not the specific results that are presented."
At one time, perhaps. I would have to disagree though in terms most modern science. I don't think even the principle is there anymore. Something as broad as evolutionary theory relies upon enormous amounts of coordinated work by diverse fields and previous findings far removed in time from the researcher. You rely upon the honesty of other researchers, the provenance of bones and artifacts, even the cleanliness of the lab used for genetic testing or carbon dating. There are controls and procedures, but in the end every layer of complexity you add tends to add more fallibility, instead of more reliability, in the results. Even as a researcher, you have a high level of uncertainty. Occam's Razor wouldn't know where to start.
In terms of the poor guy reading a high-school textbook, re-interpreted by non-scientists and taught by someone with a degree in education, he might as well be reading the Kabbala. Faith is all he is gonna have. Such are most of us. Scientists in our society are like high priests in the Old Testament. They go into the hidden tabernacle and bring out truths, and we live by them as far as faith allows. Sure, it may well be they saw revelations in the petri dish, but the vast majority of people are never going to 'know' one way or the other. For many that faith is perilous, especially now that most science has become marketable, and the results are bankrolled by private, biased industry. Mistakes can easily kill the people who have have no choice but to accept the findings blindly.
As far as "if I would be included in the class of people to which you allude" No, i don't. I've found your posts very objective.
**
I consider myself a skeptic, but I disdain the nihilistic attitude I see here and elsewhere that skepticism is somehow a tool of destruction. I do not subscribe to the Skeptical Enquirer . I find that most people that call themselves 'skeptics' are at least as full of 'A Priori' knowledge as UFO hunters and 'paranormal investigators'. They tend to disbelieve anything they can't get a quorum of tenured faculty to agree on, and take scientific findings with little or no... skepticism? Funny, that. A noted Skeptic I know has a 'baloney detector' that he likes to cart around. Of course he, personally, decides when it goes off, since he can't carry a boatload of researchers with him. So much for skepticism.
I don't think my skepticism will lead me to a belief or disbelief in anything, that isn't what it is for. The final result of all skepticism, to me, is the knowledge that "I don't know for sure, and apparently neither do you". For me, to smite Kona's belief in God goes against the spirit of both Science and skepticism. To do so I would have to have as much faith in the totality of my understanding as he places in God. You can say "I don't have to know everything to know that God doesn't exist." but, actually, you do. If there is anything at all you don't know about, it could be God.
I have enjoyed reading Paxx's, Aleatoric's, and many other's posts, but to be honest some others here have really surprised me with their blindness, even bitterness. I would expect much more from people who claim to embrace scientific thought and who seem to shun blind faith.
[Message Edited]
"I can, at least IN PRINCIPLE, duplicate the effort or experiments or theories that they did (or claim to hold true), and verify or not the specific results that are presented."
At one time, perhaps. I would have to disagree though in terms most modern science. I don't think even the principle is there anymore. Something as broad as evolutionary theory relies upon enormous amounts of coordinated work by diverse fields and previous findings far removed in time from the researcher. You rely upon the honesty of other researchers, the provenance of bones and artifacts, even the cleanliness of the lab used for genetic testing or carbon dating. There are controls and procedures, but in the end every layer of complexity you add tends to add more fallibility, instead of more reliability, in the results. Even as a researcher, you have a high level of uncertainty. Occam's Razor wouldn't know where to start.
In terms of the poor guy reading a high-school textbook, re-interpreted by non-scientists and taught by someone with a degree in education, he might as well be reading the Kabbala. Faith is all he is gonna have. Such are most of us. Scientists in our society are like high priests in the Old Testament. They go into the hidden tabernacle and bring out truths, and we live by them as far as faith allows. Sure, it may well be they saw revelations in the petri dish, but the vast majority of people are never going to 'know' one way or the other. For many that faith is perilous, especially now that most science has become marketable, and the results are bankrolled by private, biased industry. Mistakes can easily kill the people who have have no choice but to accept the findings blindly.
As far as "if I would be included in the class of people to which you allude" No, i don't. I've found your posts very objective.
**
I consider myself a skeptic, but I disdain the nihilistic attitude I see here and elsewhere that skepticism is somehow a tool of destruction. I do not subscribe to the Skeptical Enquirer
. I find that most people that call themselves 'skeptics' are at least as full of 'A Priori' knowledge as UFO hunters and 'paranormal investigators'. They tend to disbelieve anything they can't get a quorum of tenured faculty to agree on, and take scientific findings with little or no... skepticism? Funny, that. A noted Skeptic I know has a 'baloney detector' that he likes to cart around. Of course he, personally, decides when it goes off, since he can't carry a boatload of researchers with him. So much for skepticism.I don't think my skepticism will lead me to a belief or disbelief in anything, that isn't what it is for. The final result of all skepticism, to me, is the knowledge that "I don't know for sure, and apparently neither do you". For me, to smite Kona's belief in God goes against the spirit of both Science and skepticism. To do so I would have to have as much faith in the totality of my understanding as he places in God. You can say "I don't have to know everything to know that God doesn't exist." but, actually, you do. If there is anything at all you don't know about, it could be God.
I have enjoyed reading Paxx's, Aleatoric's, and many other's posts, but to be honest some others here have really surprised me with their blindness, even bitterness. I would expect much more from people who claim to embrace scientific thought and who seem to shun blind faith.
[Message Edited]
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 25 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Reply #481 Friday, September 19, 2003 8:18 AM