User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 163

  1. #101
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    And that addresses Shestov's argument how exactly?



    Yeah, I actually take time to read your posts. I really should stop doing that.
    ill admit i can be an asshole and the modern day secular judiasm was a red herring.

    i do however feel that it is legitimate to bring up the fact that the science method and the historical method are both "methods", and that generally the historical method is less reliable than the science method.

    do you have any comment?

  2. #102
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post

    do you have any comment?
    Yeah, the issue I'm discussing is not about history vs. science. It's not even about religion vs science. I have nothing against science per se. I do have a problem with science built on faulty philosophical precepts, and/or faulty philosophical precepts that tries to cloak itself as "science".

  3. #103
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Yeah, the issue I'm discussing is not about history vs. science. It's not even about religion vs science. I have nothing against science per se. I do have a problem with science built on faulty philosophical precepts, and/or faulty philosophical precepts that tries to cloak itself as "science".
    ok so we are in agreement that psudoscience sucks... now all we have to do is convince you of what things are indeed psudoscience

  4. #104
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I will be provocative and say that evolution is not something you believe in.
    It is true or it is false there is no third option.
    I agreed with the rest of your post, AntisocialOne, but there IS another option. A very important one... "the best explanation for the available evidence." This is not the same thing as "true". It's also the only real option that actual science addresses. I know that I'm nitpicking here, but I think that in this case, the terminology used is important because it tells you *how* scientific conclusions are made. Complete black-and-white alternatives like "true" and "false" are too simplistic for the kind of conclusions that science actually draws. Now often it's convenient to simplify things to "true" and "false" in conversation, but science always leaves the possibility for additional data altering what conclusions are reasonable. By embracing change when, and only when the evidence warrants it leads, in general, to a more accurate and predictive set of concepts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    I am not a very religious person, but even from a scientist's perspective, you should eliminate any possibility, right?
    Not altogether unreasonable, and questioning reality is a good thing, but refusing to eliminate possibilities that are unsupported by observations leads to unproductive concepts. It's really cliched, but why should I eliminate the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being offended at my consumption of non al-dente pasta and strangling me in my sleep with one of his innumerable noodly appendages? I should eliminate this because I (and the history of human knowledge in general) provides me with no evidence to give me a reason to be worried about this. Now if we start seeing a rash of soggy-pasta eating mystery nighttime strangle-ees, I might reconsider my opinion... but I don't expect to need to .

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Not questioning reality is taking everything at surface value. Assuming that everything you see is all there is is making a very dangerous assumption.
    Science is *all* about questioning things. But just because you (the scientific community in general) question things doesn't mean that you refuse to acknowledge what you *can* see. It means that you look for other ways to address your questions so that your results can be confirmed or not. Science *never* assumes that what you see is all that's there - it leaves open the options for current conclusions being changed by additional evidence (this happens all the time)... but it *does* require that evidence. It also allows you to continue to build on your body of knowledge using a base of concepts that have been repeatedly tested and are *still* the best explanation for (all of) the evidence. Anyone who's not convinced is still free to compose new tests (acquire new evidence) to see if the current conclusion might not be accurate (I'm sure there are Flat-Earthers out there looking for a world-edge). But people who decry the current scientific conclusion without providing evidence (or provide evidence that doesn't really address the question, or does so poorly and/or irreproducibly) aren't taken seriously.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #105
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    So for those who don't believe in evolution, which part of the theory do you disbelieve?

    1) That generations of life have variation.
    2) That the environment culls which part of life survives to create the next generation

    Note, many scientists, ans religious people have stated that evolution and religion can co-exist.
    I believe both of those things, so according to this definition I suppose I believe evolution. I become skeptical when scientists try to construct the past though. I doubt it is even possible to know what was occurring on Earth 1 million years ago (much less 1 billion years ago).

    I express this doubt not out of ignorance but out of knowledge. I'm too familiar with mathematics to not have doubts. In most contexts if you were to suggest extrapolating 1 million years beyond your data, then people would assume you are joking. In the context of radioactive decay people do the wildest extrapolations imaginable without batting an eye. From my perspective a lot of normally skeptical people are giving a free pass to scientists who attempt to construct the past.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Those who reject the theory of evolution are effectively claiming that religious dogma is a more effective method of discovering the universal truth than the scientific process. Is this belief justified? Let's explore.

    The scientific process involves the formulation of a hypothesis which is tested against observed occurrences in nature. If there are contradictions, the hypothesis is improved and retested.

    The religious dogma method of knowledge assumes that the truth is already revealed. If the "truth" does not agree with observed facts, the facts are discarded.

    It doesn't take a genius to determine which method is more likely to converge upon the truth over time.

  7. #107
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I express this doubt not out of ignorance but out of knowledge. I'm too familiar with mathematics to not have doubts. In most contexts if you were to suggest extrapolating 1 million years beyond your data, then people would assume you are joking. In the context of radioactive decay people do the wildest extrapolations imaginable without batting an eye. From my perspective a lot of normally skeptical people are giving a free pass to scientists who attempt to construct the past.
    Either the theory behind radioactive decay is sound or it is not. If it is, the rest follows. The length of the time span is irrelevant.

    (Also, kudos on one of the more subtle appeals to authority I've come across.)
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  8. #108
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    In most contexts if you were to suggest extrapolating 1 million years beyond your data, then people would assume you are joking.
    Would you say the same if you could look back in time? Like we do with astronomy, for example. Or what if we have a record of sorts of the period, like the genetic 'archive' we carry with us (and all animals do)?

  9. #109
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Either the theory behind radioactive decay is sound or it is not. If it is, the rest follows. The length of the time span is irrelevant.

    (Also, kudos on one of the more subtle appeals to authority I've come across.)
    If you want to deal with absolutes, then no time based mathematical model is sound when you extrapolate. In a practical sense, if you only extrapolate a small amount of time, then usually the differences in the projection are small enough that it doesn't matter much. The further you extrapolate, the less accuracy your projection has until the model becomes useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby
    Would you say the same if you could look back in time? Like we do with astronomy, for example. Or what if we have a record of sorts of the period, like the genetic 'archive' we carry with us (and all animals do)?
    I'm not sure what your point is here with astronomy, but my view on astronomy is

    a) You can say you are viewing the past, but it is somewhat of a irrelevant statement. Like you can say, "I'm looking at a supernova that occurred 10,000 years ago", but that doesn't really matter because you have no idea what is happening in that spot right now. It doesn't matter how far you are looking into the past. If you stare into a telescope for one year, then you have one year's worth of observations. If you are looking at an event that occurred 10,000 years ago, you don't have a 10,000 year time interval worth of observations, just one year (or however long you looked into the telescope).

    b) I don't particularly take most of astronomy seriously as a science, assuming we are talking about anything outside our solar system. There is no experimentation involved. It's just staring out of a telescope and then making a bunch of guesses. You can't come up with an application to any of the ideas, and you can't test if they are true. It's a mostly useless science.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  10. #110
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    a) You can say you are viewing the past, but it is somewhat of a irrelevant statement. Like you can say, "I'm looking at a supernova that occurred 10,000 years ago", but that doesn't really matter because you have no idea what is happening in that spot right now. It doesn't matter how far you are looking into the past. If you stare into a telescope for one year, then you have one year's worth of observations. If you are looking at an event that occurred 10,000 years ago, you don't have a 10,000 year time interval worth of observations, just one year (or however long you looked into the telescope).
    This is like saying that you can't know anything about humans because you can't look at every human at every moment. The point here is that you catalog your observations. It doesn't matter how distant they are, or how removed they are. It just means you have limitations on the observations you can make (ie: "experiment").

    Just like with the human example, we can't say anything specific about a particular human that we have never met; but we can say a fair bit about humans in general.

    On the whole observation = useless thing, observation is pretty foundational to creating hypothesizes in which to test - there are reams of things that we will never be able to test on, more than astronomy (landers on mars? solar orbiters? etc.), and are still worth 'observing'. The concept that they are so far apart is misplaced, IMO.

Similar Threads

  1. What type do you think a majority of mafia/mobsters would be?
    By swordpath in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-07-2010, 11:05 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 12:08 AM
  3. Which Natural Disaster would be most interesting to see?
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 04:00 AM
  4. [NF] If you've ever wondered what a world of NFs would be like...
    By wwbeachbum161 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 09:13 PM
  5. A fig by any other name would be a Newt!
    By TheNewt in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO