Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 12:34 PM
33 online now:
edge, GDR, jar, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Stile, Tanypteryx, vimesey (11 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,826 Year: 9,862/19,786 Month: 2,284/2,119 Week: 320/724 Day: 45/114 Hour: 4/16


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 265 (135144)
08-19-2004 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by jt
08-18-2004 7:59 PM


The other explanation could be used to make predictions and stuff, but not believed.

Nobody does believe it. That's the essence of scientific tentativity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 7:59 PM jt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by jt, posted 08-19-2004 11:06 PM crashfrog has responded

  
jt
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 257 of 265 (135474)
08-19-2004 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by crashfrog
08-19-2004 1:28 AM


Nobody does believe it. That's the essence of scientific tentativity.

Ok, then I would not "hold it tentatively." That doesn't change my point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2004 1:28 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2004 11:55 AM jt has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 265 (135653)
08-20-2004 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by jt
08-19-2004 11:06 PM


That doesn't change my point.

I think it does, though.

You're on a mission to prove that the theory of evolution is not "true", but nobody who supports the theory believes that it is "true", because truth cannot be known. For all we know, evolution merely describes the behavior not of real things, but of software in the Matrix or whatever. (Thank god for a movie that summed up Cartesian Doubt in one little word. )

In other words, you're overreaching in trying to know something you can't. The rest of us are going to stick with what we can know; which theory provides the most accurate and parsimonious explanation/predictions of data.

That's the theory of evolution. If you disagree, that's fine, but it'd be nice if you could support your position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by jt, posted 08-19-2004 11:06 PM jt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jt, posted 08-20-2004 2:00 PM crashfrog has responded

  
jt
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 259 of 265 (135690)
08-20-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by crashfrog
08-20-2004 11:55 AM


You're on a mission to prove that the theory of evolution is not "true", but nobody who supports the theory believes that it is "true", because truth cannot be known.

I understand that according to scientific method, you cannot prove a theory/hypothesis, you can only falsify it. But I am not trying to prove a theory, I am trying to falsify one, so I don't see my mistake.

For all we know, evolution merely describes the behavior not of real things, but of software in the Matrix or whatever. (Thank god for a movie that summed up Cartesian Doubt in one little word. )

I agree that it is possible that we know nothing of the real world, and that everything is an illusion, but I don't see how that applies here.

If you disagree, that's fine, but it'd be nice if you could support your position.

I just drafted an opening post for a thread involving genetics/cellular biology, and will be posting it soon-ish.

This message has been edited by JT, 08-20-2004 01:33 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2004 11:55 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by NosyNed, posted 08-20-2004 4:07 PM jt has responded
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2004 7:12 PM jt has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 260 of 265 (135718)
08-20-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by jt
08-20-2004 2:00 PM


A bit over worked
I think going on about truth as applied to theories is a bit over worked.

Most of the time we are using the word colloquially. That is, truth is what we are "sure enough" is correct. And in that way many scientific theories are treated as "truth". All the discussion about being tentitive is true at the leading edge or for something like general relavity where there are still some concerns but for the germ theory or atomic theory we have arrived at something that is treated in a practical way as true.

The same applies to the ToE.

The problem is in these discussions we get various different meanings or connotations of the word "truth" tangled up.

Mathematical "proof" in one thing and is absolute "truth" within in confines of the particular mathematics.

Religious "truth" is something else and not the same as the practical, maybe temporary "truth" we arrive at with science.

Scientific "truth" in NOT the same as the above but most of the time it is taken as firmly true for all practical purposes. I think it is important to remind all of us of the tentitiveness but not to confuse that with very, very firm assuredness.

So, after we have put the philosophy of science down as the context, that something is "proven" and "true". Just that it is only as those words might be modified and defined within the context established.

That context does not apply elsewhere as in math or religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jt, posted 08-20-2004 2:00 PM jt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by jt, posted 08-20-2004 5:07 PM NosyNed has responded

  
jt
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 261 of 265 (135737)
08-20-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by NosyNed
08-20-2004 4:07 PM


Re: A bit over worked
Religious "truth" is something else and not the same as the practical, maybe temporary "truth" we arrive at with science.

What do you mean by "religious truth?" Is "religious truth" similar to metaphysical truth?

I think it is important to remind all of us of the tentitiveness but not to confuse that with very, very firm assuredness.

Thanks for the reminder, and I agree with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by NosyNed, posted 08-20-2004 4:07 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by NosyNed, posted 08-20-2004 8:49 PM jt has not yet responded

  
jt
Member (Idle past 3769 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 262 of 265 (135741)
08-20-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by nator
08-16-2004 11:04 PM


Perhaps you can link to the threads you will begin on any or all of these topics?

"Problems with Chromosomal Evolution - From Circular to Linear" is a thread I just opened up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 08-16-2004 11:04 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by nator, posted 08-20-2004 11:00 PM jt has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 265 (135772)
08-20-2004 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by jt
08-20-2004 2:00 PM


I understand that according to scientific method, you cannot prove a theory/hypothesis, you can only falsify it. But I am not trying to prove a theory, I am trying to falsify one, so I don't see my mistake.

You understand correctly, and as long as that's your goal, that's fine.

But falsifiying evolution doesn't falsify all possible naturalistic explanations, nor does it prove creationism or the existence of God.

I'm not saying you think that, though.

I agree that it is possible that we know nothing of the real world, and that everything is an illusion, but I don't see how that applies here.

Where it applies is, if the origin of life is not naturalistic, then it's not knowable.

I just drafted an opening post for a thread involving genetics/cellular biology, and will be posting it soon-ish.

I did see that, and while it's not a thread I have the expertise to participate in, I do look forward to watching it unfold.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jt, posted 08-20-2004 2:00 PM jt has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 264 of 265 (135799)
08-20-2004 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by jt
08-20-2004 5:07 PM


truths
What do you mean by "religious truth?" Is "religious truth" similar to metaphysical truth?

Actually, in truth, I don't know.

It seems to me that the revealed, evidenceless, unchangable form of "truth" is different from others. I don't think that is "metaphysical".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jt, posted 08-20-2004 5:07 PM jt has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 265 of 265 (135841)
08-20-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by jt
08-20-2004 5:11 PM


Sorry, but I don't have the expertise to intelligently discuss the details of molecular genetics.

Interesting topic, though, which I will follow and hopefully learn something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by jt, posted 08-20-2004 5:11 PM jt has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019