Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-01-2017 12:22 AM
406 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, Dredge, DrJones*, frako, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 400 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminAsgara
Post Volume:
Total: 805,916 Year: 10,522/21,208 Month: 4/3,605 Week: 152/873 Day: 4/148 Hour: 4/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Author Topic:   How long does it take to evolve?
Faith
Member
Posts: 24503
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 181 of 221 (770773)
10-13-2015 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
10-13-2015 6:30 PM


Re: science is the pursuit of knowledge
SO inspiring the intoning of the Liturgy of Science Worship. There probably are sciences that fit the description, but evolution sure doesn't, being nothing but imaginations piled on imaginations. For one thing there's nothing you can replicate, all you can do is interpret. Since all you can do is interpret there is no way to falsify it. Someone may disagree with your interpretation and that's the extent of it. If you have the power your interpretation wins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2015 6:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 9:13 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 10-14-2015 8:10 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 8:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15807
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 182 of 221 (770775)
10-13-2015 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
10-13-2015 8:35 PM


Re: science is the pursuit of knowledge
There are other threads where it would be on-topic for you to be wrong about this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 8:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 183 of 221 (770777)
10-13-2015 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Tanypteryx
10-13-2015 1:19 PM


Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
Tanypteryx writes:

[Thomas Nagel] may be well known, but I had never heard of him. He is a respected thinker, by whom? Anyone can think about biology, why are his thoughts about biology of any importance?

As a scientist and a biologist, I have run across very few people who characterize themselves as philosophers whose thoughts or opinions about science I respect, or about any subject for that matter. Most of the ones I have had experience with think they know about science but are actually failures at science and understanding science.


It never fails to amuse me that people who have low opinions about philosophers usually don't recognize the name of even a prominent living philosopher. Anti-intellectualism is ironic coming from people who otherwise pride themselves on their grasp of human knowledge. Science, after all, is just as much a philosophical pursuit as an empirical one. I can only assume the disdain for philosophy among prominent scientists like Lawrence Krauss derives from an aversion to having one's beliefs questioned and one's sense of certainty undermined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-13-2015 1:19 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-13-2015 11:19 PM MrHambre has responded
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 11:22 PM MrHambre has not yet responded
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 10-14-2015 8:58 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1353
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 184 of 221 (770780)
10-13-2015 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by MrHambre
10-13-2015 10:04 PM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
It never fails to amuse me that people who have low opinions about philosophers usually don't recognize the name of even a prominent living philosopher. Anti-intellectualism is ironic coming from people who otherwise pride themselves on their grasp of human knowledge. Science, after all, is just as much a philosophical pursuit as an empirical one. I can only assume the disdain for philosophy among prominent scientists like Lawrence Krauss derives from an aversion to having one's beliefs questioned and one's sense of certainty undermined.

And it never fails to amuse me that some people revere other people who tell them how to think.

I cannot speak for other scientists as to their reasons for not caring what philosophers think. I am not a prominent scientist so no self-proclaimed big thinker has bothered to question my beliefs or undermined my sense of certainty.

I have had some of these types tell me how I should photograph dragonflies, how I should follow some rules of composition, or tonality, or color. I have had them tell me I don't use bokeh they way they think I should. They tell me I should follow their rules for post-processing my images. That's the key right there, my images.

My work is mine, whether it is science, photography, or art. I didn't ask them for their opinions so they can blow them out their ass.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by MrHambre, posted 10-13-2015 10:04 PM MrHambre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by MrHambre, posted 10-13-2015 11:33 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15807
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 185 of 221 (770781)
10-13-2015 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by MrHambre
10-13-2015 10:04 PM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
Well, apparently Nagel is wrong about biology. Dismissing him seems like a pretty good idea. Unless you can identify an argument he's made on this topic that's any good.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by MrHambre, posted 10-13-2015 10:04 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 186 of 221 (770783)
10-13-2015 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Tanypteryx
10-13-2015 11:19 PM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
My work is mine, whether it is science, photography, or art. I didn't ask them for their opinions so they can blow them out their ass.

Your internet tough talk doesn't change the fact that you snidely dismiss an entire legacy of human thought with which you're obviously unfamiliar. Anti-intellectualism is tragic no matter whether it's fundie Christians or science-thumpers peddling it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-13-2015 11:19 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-13-2015 11:45 PM MrHambre has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1353
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 187 of 221 (770784)
10-13-2015 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by MrHambre
10-13-2015 11:33 PM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
Your internet tough talk doesn't change the fact that you snidely dismiss an entire legacy of human thought with which you're obviously unfamiliar. Anti-intellectualism is tragic no matter whether it's fundie Christians or science-thumpers peddling it.

Oh, good grief. I haven't dismissed anything. When I was young I read lots of that stuff. I found that I disagreed with most of it and found a lot of it to be silly.

It isn't anti-intellectualism. There is only so much time available in my life and it is getting shorter all the time. I choose to spend it pursuing knowledge that makes me feel alive and ignoring things that don't.

So get off your intellectual high horse and quit trying to fit me into your anti-intellectual box.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by MrHambre, posted 10-13-2015 11:33 PM MrHambre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by MrHambre, posted 10-14-2015 8:57 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15563
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 188 of 221 (770795)
10-14-2015 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
10-13-2015 8:35 PM


Re: science is the pursuit of knowledge
We're just trying to convince Lamdem what the scientific method *is*. Whether scientists are properly following the scientific method when they carry out research into evolution is a different topic. Lamdem is having his own difficulties reining in his enthusiasm for going off-topic, he doesn't need encouragement.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 8:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 189 of 221 (770799)
10-14-2015 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
10-13-2015 8:35 PM


Re: science is the pursuit of knowledge
See Message 66 on A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument, where you have a lot of unanswered replies.

One thread at a time is enough, imho, for you to be wrong on.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : thread


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 8:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 190 of 221 (770800)
10-14-2015 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Tanypteryx
10-13-2015 11:45 PM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
I haven't dismissed anything.

Sure you did. You explicitly said that no philosopher had ever told you anything worthwhile, and that philosophers in general are just failed scientists.

It isn't anti-intellectualism.

It's not? Nobody here even knows what Nagel supposedly said. However, no one's giving him the benefit of the doubt, or assuming that our creationist buddy is quoting him out of context. No, we just figure he's a failosopher, so he's wrong. Talk about a leap of faith.

Hey, if you think creationism is old hat, anti-philosophy has whiskers on it too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-13-2015 11:45 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2015 10:44 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15563
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


(4)
Message 191 of 221 (770801)
10-14-2015 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by MrHambre
10-13-2015 10:04 PM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
I don't know if Tanypteryx would agree with me, but I do identify somewhat with what he says. I find some philosophy very interesting, but when I want to understand how the real world works I turn to science that is based upon observations of the natural world. What turned me off most about the Thomas Nagel reference wasn't that he was a philosopher but that it was an argument from authority, and a relatively obscure one at that (sorry, but I never heard of him, either). Didn't Lamden name drop Hawking, too? I think Lamden is still stuck in the stage of figuring out what constitutes a meaningful foundation for knowledge.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by MrHambre, posted 10-13-2015 10:04 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-14-2015 10:52 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15807
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 192 of 221 (770806)
10-14-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by MrHambre
10-14-2015 8:57 AM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
Nobody here even knows what Nagel supposedly said.

This is why I asked you if any of his arguments on this topic were any good.

If you don't know what his arguments are, but are sticking up for him just because he's an "intellectual", then I find that pretentious and shallow.

If you do know, but don't think his arguments are any good, then that might explain why you didn't answer me, but it makes it puzzling that you should stick up for him.

And if do you know, and his arguments are good, then please do tell us what they are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by MrHambre, posted 10-14-2015 8:57 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1353
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 193 of 221 (770807)
10-14-2015 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
10-14-2015 8:58 AM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
I don't know if Tanypteryx would agree with me

Pretty much.

What turned me off most about the Thomas Nagel reference wasn't that he was a philosopher but that it was an argument from authority, and a relatively obscure one at that

It wasn't really even a quote, just a vague hint at what he supposedly said. The Hawking reference also. Lamden doesn't seem to have mastered quote-mining yet.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 10-14-2015 8:58 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Lamden, posted 10-14-2015 2:47 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Lamden
Junior Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 25
From: Lakewood
Joined: 09-23-2015


Message 194 of 221 (770825)
10-14-2015 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Tanypteryx
10-14-2015 10:52 AM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
The quote from Hawkings was just to say I don't know what he means, but it just sounds interesting and relevant to what I was saying, ( whether you like what I said or not), and would be nice if someone could explain it .

Sheesh.

As far as Nagel goes, here are some of the quotes. No interest in discussing, I am just pointing out than when you walk along a road that leads somewhere, you meet some people along the way. I didn't find the one I had seen, at least not on line, but here are some:

“I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement....”

“Those who have seriously criticized these arguments have certainly shown that there are ways to resist the design conclusion; but the general force of the negative part of the intelligent design position—skepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidence—does not appear to me to have been destroyed in these exchanges. At least, the question should be regarded as open. To anyone interested in the basis of this judgment, I can only recommend a careful reading of some of the leading advocates on both sides of the issue—with special attention to what has been established by the critics of intelligent design. Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrine—that the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical law—cannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.”

“My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life.”
― Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.

Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-14-2015 10:52 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Bliyaal, posted 10-14-2015 3:09 PM Lamden has not yet responded
 Message 196 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-14-2015 3:18 PM Lamden has responded
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2015 4:07 PM Lamden has not yet responded
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2015 4:07 PM Lamden has not yet responded

    
Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


(1)
Message 195 of 221 (770829)
10-14-2015 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Lamden
10-14-2015 2:47 PM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
“I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement....”

Considering that the majority of scientists in the world believe in a deity, I would say that he's wrong.

“Those who have seriously criticized these arguments have certainly shown that there are ways to resist the design conclusion; but the general force of the negative part of the intelligent design position—skepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidence—does not appear to me to have been destroyed in these exchanges. At least, the question should be regarded as open. To anyone interested in the basis of this judgment, I can only recommend a careful reading of some of the leading advocates on both sides of the issue—with special attention to what has been established by the critics of intelligent design. Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrine—that the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical law—cannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.”

“My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life.”

He's talking about abiogenesis which is not the same as evolution.

― Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

Well now we know someone who's conception of science is false.

Tell me why should we care about what he has to say?

Edited by Bliyaal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Lamden, posted 10-14-2015 2:47 PM Lamden has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017