Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 133 of 358 (646031)
01-02-2012 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2012 9:46 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Dawn Bertot writes:
Its first mistake, it to assume that its investigative process, does not need to involve questions of origins. Instead of just repeating yourself on this point and reminding what you have decided the SM involves and should do, just show me in logical form why it shouldnt include origins or orgination processes
Of course science investigates "origins". It's actually creationism that doesn't do so. If you look at creation mythologies, they make up a whole variety of origins "answers" that do not describe the real cosmos at all, and are very clearly human fabrications. Making stuff up and believing it is certainly not investigating.
When scientists don't know the origins of something, they make all the relevant observations they can, hypothesise, and methodically investigate. Whether or not future generations will ever have a complete understanding of the universe in this way is something impossible to say, but it's the only way to proceed. There are no shortcuts, and making up myths may please some people, but it certainly isn't investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 9:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(4)
Message 137 of 358 (646060)
01-02-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
01-02-2012 1:52 PM


Scientists are always asking "why" questions.
RAZD writes:
Why asks the reason or purpose for something happening - what is the purpose for the sky being blue? The question of purpose is answered by philosophy or religion, not by science.
Please don't confuse Dawn about the word "why". He has more than enough problems with language already. And "purpose" is a notoriously difficult word to define.
"Why" questions are very frequently asked and answered in science. Why is the sky blue has nothing to do with purpose. The only time that "why" (and other) questions relate to purpose in the sense that you seem to be using the word is when science is dealing with beings that can act with volition - ourselves and some other animals. But why questions are common elsewhere, and they are usually asking for the immediate reasons behind things.
"Why do plants....
You'll easily find thousands of "why" questions in the literature.
Evolutionary theory answers lots of "why" questions. "Why are there vestigial organs?" "Why do whales breath air?"
There are no restrictions on what science can try to explore and explain. It just has to be real.
What science doesn't do is make up non-biological beings who act with intent, and then attempt to "study" them. That's left to theology.
Dawn makes the mistake of thinking that making up answers to the questions of the origins of things is the same as investigating the origins of things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 1:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 11:33 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 146 of 358 (646101)
01-03-2012 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by RAZD
01-02-2012 11:33 PM


Re: equivocation on meanings doesn't make your case.
Zen Deist writes:
Curiously, I look at the primary definitions of the words to check assertions like this.
Curiously, for an English speaker over the age of twelve, you have remarkable problems in understanding the definitions you read.
Zen Deist quoting dictionary definition of why writes:
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
Will I have to explain the word "or" to you?
Why does it rain?
For what reason does it rain?
What causes rain? What is the cause of rain?
Zen Deist writes:
The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose.
This is a mistake you've been making for a few years on this board.
Will I have to explain the word "or" to you? Reason, cause or purpose.
For some time now you've been putting forward your view that science doesn't ask or answer "why" questions.
You're 100% wrong.
{ABE}
RAZD writes:
Dawn Bertot writes:
For any investigation into the natural world to include How but not Why, is not a complete objective investigation. Its tenative at best. And who cares about tenative
Notice how ID and creation make logical sense in combining the two, (how and Why),its the only logical approach
Once it is demonstrated that not only how, but why are both necessary in the same investigation, then one can proceed to see if they are tenable as logical and rational explanations for existence
So do you agree with Dawn?
In his association of the word "why" with I.D./creationism in that extract, Dawn seems to be making exactly the same mistake about the word that you're making. But as his grasp of language is even worse than yours, it's often very hard to tell what he means.
If he's implying that science doesn't ask "why" questions, then I strongly disagree with both of you on that point.
Edited by bluegenes, : addition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 11:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2012 8:16 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2012 8:22 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 157 of 358 (646123)
01-03-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by RAZD
01-03-2012 8:22 AM


Re: LOL
Zen Deist writes:
You need to pay closer attention to the way those words are used in the definition:
You need to understand for what reason those words were used.
You need to understand why they were used.
Explain clearly what your links to an article about journalism has to do with the question of whether or not "why" questions are asked in science.
Please give your reasons as to why it's easy to find thousands of "why" questions in scientific papers if science doesn't ask "why" questions.
Suggested exercise: google "why are plants green". Then google "how are plants green". Then go to google scholar and do the same thing.
Dawn Bertot seems to be coming up with his version of something that is commonly said by certain religious people. Science answers the "how" questions, and religion answers the "why" questions. When they say this, they make the incorrect assumption that "why" implies intentional purpose.
You're inadvertently supporting Dawn in making this mistake.
RAZD writes:
Who is it about: the sky.
Are you turning into Dawn?
Zen Deist writes:
Now it's your turn: why did it happen?
Because the earth has evolved a certain type of atmosphere and because an animal with a certain type of vision aligned its eyes towards the sky.
You might try the exercise of looking for "because" answers in the conclusions sections of scientific papers, as well. You'll find plenty.
And note that, as I said in my first post on this subject, the scientific "whys" can also involve intended purpose as well as reason and cause (if the animal had looked at the sky intentionally, for example).
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2012 8:22 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2012 7:03 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 169 of 358 (646136)
01-03-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Buzsaw
01-03-2012 8:16 AM


Re: Unanswered Whys Of Science
Buzsaw writes:
That's why science loves relativity and quantum. That's why science shuns logic, common sense and objectivity. Too many whys remain un-asked and un-told by science.
For examples, science sweeps under the rug, the whys of the zero/singularity event, the whys of before space/time existed, the logics of how life, managed to manage biogenesis through the early stages of emergence from chaotic soup to amazingly complex life systems, the whys of the fact that all recorded historical cultures have been religious, the whys their assumption of uniformitarion expansion all the way down through the billions of alleged years from the alleged singularity, the whys of the alleged extension of all dinosaurs, all the while, the survival of the other species, etc, etc, etc.........
The difference between a scientific approach to reality and yours, Buzsaw, is that scientists will certainly ask questions about things that are unknown, but until they have good answers, they will say "we don't yet know or understand such and such". They will make all the observations they can, they will hypothesise, they will try to extend their knowledge but, unlike you, they will not make up subjective, emotion-based, desire-filled, fantasy answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2012 8:16 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2012 9:16 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 221 of 358 (646850)
01-06-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by RAZD
01-06-2012 7:03 PM


Will these claims ever be defended?
Zen Deist writes:
The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose.
Hi Zen. What I picked you up on earlier in the thread was that you seemed to be implying the view expressed above. You then used the exact phrase above in a reply to me. Message 143
In the course of the discussion, you've found a dictionary definition which tells you that "why" is used in questions relating to reason and cause, as well as purpose.
Is your problem just not being able to admit that you were wrong?
Now, for all I know, you and Dawn Bertot may have heads which inhabit a bizarre religious world in which the causes of all things are purposeful. Is that the case for you?
If not, you should realise that your statement that I've quoted above is wrong. The proper use of why is to ask questions about cause, reason or purpose.
And to claim that science doesn't ask or answer "why" questions is absolutely wrong, as I've demonstrated directly by linking to the literature on google scholar. It's a claim you've made a number of times on this board. Scientists are very interested in the causes of things, the reasons behind things, and sometimes even purpose.
Do you want to defend your view that science doesn't ask "why" questions on a separate thread, as well as defending your view expressed in the sentence I quoted above?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2012 7:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2012 10:28 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 223 of 358 (646862)
01-06-2012 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by RAZD
01-06-2012 10:28 PM


Re: Will these claims ever be defended?
Zen Deist writes:
I corrected your misinterpretation of the definition:
No. You just showed me that you hadn't understood what was important in the definition. Before you dig yourself deeper into a hole, have a look at these links.
"Why is the sky blue"
"How is the sky blue"
Zen Deist writes:
Note that to provide a complete answer you need to provide something not already covered by the other questions.
Why are you now making up rules about English usage? Why not just admit that you are wrong, and that science can and does ask why questions?
Below is a paper in the American Journal of Physics expressing the view that the role of human colour vision should play a more important part in answers to the question "why is the sky blue?".
One of thousands of examples we can find of scientists disobeying Zen Deist's fantasy rules

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2012 10:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 8:13 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 230 by xongsmith, posted 01-07-2012 3:31 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 225 of 358 (646922)
01-07-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
01-07-2012 8:13 AM


Re: Will these claims ever be defended?
Zen Diest writes:
Still no answer to why the sky happens to appear blue.
You're assuming your own personal definition of "why" in order to reach your conclusions.
Thread proposal coming up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 8:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 335 of 358 (648212)
01-14-2012 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Dawn Bertot
01-13-2012 8:40 AM


Re: Summary
Dawn Bertot writes:
The main tenet of the ToE is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes. It should be obvious that that aspect of the ToE cannot be falsified
Are you implying that there could never be any evidence for I.D./creationism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-13-2012 8:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Omnivorous, posted 01-15-2012 11:04 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024