Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 67 (35662)
03-28-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Quetzal
03-28-2003 4:11 AM


Straight to the point...
"Whether or not an atheist needs to agree that they are religious or not is utterly irrelevant to the central question of this thread - is evolution metaphysics or science?
Please attempt to address the actual topic. Thanks."
The question you pose "is evolution metaphysics or science?" was puzzling to me (I thought I'd been perfectly clear earlier). Anyhow, here's my take on this again :
There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME) and the two are definitely not the same. Repeatedly one sees the SE being used as 'bait' when it's the ME that is actually being promoted.
[BTW, I am not insinuating a conspiracy here - it only sounds that way.]
I have asked this question several times now and have yet to get an answer so let me try it again this time directed at you : when you promote evolution, do you promote the SE or the ME?
If you promote the SE then we have no conflict at all. If you promote the ME then we have a metaphysical conflict and/or a theological conflict and/or a scientific conflict. Without specifics I can't say any more than this.
I can't be any clearer than this.
Before I leave this post, I can't let this one go by : you ask why I thought part of my bio was relevant. I very clearly stated that it was solely to facilitate communications (reread my earlier post if you wish to confirm this). Your response made it sound as if there was a "sinister / ulterior" motive in my posting part of my bio - there wasn't.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 03-28-2003 4:11 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-28-2003 8:48 PM Joralex has replied
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 03-28-2003 8:53 PM Joralex has replied
 Message 22 by edge, posted 03-29-2003 10:24 AM Joralex has replied
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 03-30-2003 4:31 AM Joralex has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 17 of 67 (35664)
03-28-2003 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Joralex
03-28-2003 8:32 PM


Re: Straight to the point...
It seems to me that if you can't say more without specifics, and you also cannot be clearer then you need to go away and come up with some specifics. Personally, I can't follow your reasoning at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 8:32 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Joralex, posted 03-29-2003 8:32 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 67 (35665)
03-28-2003 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Joralex
03-28-2003 8:32 PM


Re: Straight to the point...
Butting into Quetzal's subthread...
Hi Joralex! First you say:
Joralex writes:
There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME)...
It's the latter part of that statement that probably few evolutionists accept. Without first establishing the existence of an ME it might be premature for you to ask your next question:
when you promote evolution, do you promote the SE or the ME?
Since we're not yet convinced that there's any such thing as an ME, it might make sense to spend more time discussing it. It seems that what you call a metaphysic is merely that which you think insufficiently supported by evidence, and which happens to contradict your religious views. I see several problems with your position as I understand it at present:
  • You haven't yet established that evolution is insufficiently supported by evidence.
  • A scientific hypothesis which does not have sufficient evidence to be called a theory is not a metaphysic.
  • A scientific theory that opposes one religious view or another is not a metaphysic.
  • I don't think we can be certain how you mean the term metaphysic in this discussion, and I wonder if you can't find a more common term whose meaning isn't so ambiguous to non-philosophers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 8:32 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2003 2:45 AM Percy has replied
 Message 28 by Joralex, posted 03-29-2003 9:08 PM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 67 (35675)
03-29-2003 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
03-28-2003 8:53 PM


Re: Straight to the point...
He won't discuss it because he can't back it up. He tried in the previous thread and failed.
"'evolution' as 'the sole causing agent for the entireflora and fauna in the earth's biota' is a metaphysic - a religion - in the sense that this 'evolution' represents the operational mechanism by which naturalism may have some rational justification (however weak that justification may be)"
(post 41 on this page: http://EvC Forum: The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al. -->EvC Forum: The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al.)
If he has the qualifications he claims he must know that this argument is rubbish. He must also know that attempts to support his argument by claims of superior knowledge and education and assertions that others are ignorant or confused does not address the issue.
In short it seems that he has no case and knows that he has no case.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 03-28-2003 8:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Zephan, posted 03-29-2003 3:24 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 03-29-2003 2:33 PM PaulK has replied

  
Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 67 (35680)
03-29-2003 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
03-29-2003 2:45 AM


Re: Straight to the point...
[This post is off topic. --Admin]
Hey PaulK,
What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
What precisely are your qualifications? Let me guess...
You must be an atheist, non?
(that was too easy!)
[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2003 2:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2003 3:53 AM Zephan has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 67 (35684)
03-29-2003 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Zephan
03-29-2003 3:24 AM


Re: Straight to the point...
Why exactly would my qualifications be relevant ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Zephan, posted 03-29-2003 3:24 AM Zephan has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 67 (35701)
03-29-2003 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Joralex
03-28-2003 8:32 PM


Re: Straight to the point...
quote:
There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME) and the two are definitely not the same. Repeatedly one sees the SE being used as 'bait' when it's the ME that is actually being promoted.
An interesting assertion. Do you have evidence to back this up? Perhaps and example?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Joralex, posted 03-28-2003 8:32 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Joralex, posted 03-29-2003 9:14 PM edge has not replied
 Message 37 by Joralex, posted 03-31-2003 10:49 AM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 23 of 67 (35712)
03-29-2003 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
03-29-2003 2:45 AM


Re: Straight to the point...
PaulK writes:
If he has the qualifications he claims he must know that this argument is rubbish.
The history of science is full of people who held strange beliefs. Fred Hoyle, who very nearly won a Nobel, comes to mind.
I recently read an article, I forget which magazine, which reported studies showing that gifted and brilliant people usually possess a talent for defending and preserving their beliefs out of all proportion to available evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2003 2:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2003 3:43 PM Percy has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 67 (35714)
03-29-2003 3:16 PM


I'm bumping my Post #2
Joralex? Are you still out there?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 03-29-2003 11:42 PM John has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 67 (35716)
03-29-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
03-29-2003 2:33 PM


Re: Straight to the point...
The problem is that the argument contradicts itself. He asserts that evolution in the form he describes it is a metaphysic but in a "sense" which is not a sense of "metaphysic" at all.
If he cannot see that such an argument is false through the obvious self-contradiction then he clearly does not understand what he is saying at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 03-29-2003 2:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 03-29-2003 6:11 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 26 of 67 (35747)
03-29-2003 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PaulK
03-29-2003 3:43 PM


Re: Straight to the point...
I understand. What's interesting is that brilliance is no protection against acquiring misconceptions, and the more brilliant a person is, the more difficult it is to disabuse that person of any misconceptions they may have, no matter how simple, basic or fundamental.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2003 3:43 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 67 (35751)
03-29-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mister Pamboli
03-28-2003 8:48 PM


Try asking...
"It seems to me that if you can't say more without specifics, and you also cannot be clearer then you need to go away and come up with some specifics. Personally, I can't follow your reasoning at all."
To this point I've been mostly presenting our view without attempting to 'convince' anyone (via reasoning). Maybe that's why you haven't been able to 'follow'.
If you have a specific question that would clear things up for you, try asking.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-28-2003 8:48 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 67 (35753)
03-29-2003 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
03-28-2003 8:53 PM


Metaphysics for beginners : - )
"Since we're not yet convinced that there's any such thing as an ME, it might make sense to spend more time discussing it. It seems that what you call a metaphysic is merely that which you think insufficiently supported by evidence, and which happens to contradict your religious views. I see several problems with your position as I understand it at present:"
Yes, as you've defined it I would certainly have many problems... thing is, your definition isn't valid.
In concise, layman's terms a "metaphysic", a.k.a. a "worldview", is a fundamental foundation in whatever activities people conduct - science, math, any of the arts, politics, war, economics... anything! I'd posted this earlier to help out (from the World Book 2001 Encyclopedia) : "Metaphysics is concerned with the basic nature of reality. Its aim is to give a systematic account of the world and the principles that govern it. In contrast to the natural sciences, which study specific features of the world, metaphysics is a more general investigation into the fundamental features of what exists."
That there is a metaphysics of evolution (ME) as well as a science of evolution (SE) is known to anyone that has studied this matter with any seriousness and especially to those that have been active in the creation-evolution debate. I am forced to ask (and with all due respect), where have you been that this common fact appears to be a major revelation?
"You haven't yet established that evolution is insufficiently supported by evidence."
Again, are you talking about SE or ME? Se is very amply supported by evidence - observable, testable, falsifiable, etc. But the ME is a whole 'nother matter.
"A scientific hypothesis which does not have sufficient evidence to be called a theory is not a metaphysic."
I never said it was - that is not what a metaphysic is. See above.
"A scientific theory that opposes one religious view or another is not a metaphysic.""
Agreed again. But, my learned friend, science serves a metaphysic (NOT the other way around).
Here's an example that I'll present but not elaborate (it would be a dissertation onto itself): Communism (a social-political paradigm) is, by its very foundation, atheistic. Now, it should be quite apparent that a 'science' defined in such a way that it excludes at the outset anything but a materialistic view of nature wholly supports this social-political paradigm. A 'science' as, say, Isaac Newton would have defined it would not have been "acceptable" to the Communist Party. Science is but a pawn, a supporting cast, to the metaphysic that founds it.
The difficulty is that there is a feedback loop in this relationship. I'll not go there.
"I don't think we can be certain how you mean the term metaphysic in this discussion, and I wonder if you can't find a more common term whose meaning isn't so ambiguous to non-philosophers."
Hopefully my brief words above have clarified things a little.
I suspect that you et al. won't but I have to ask anyway : take my word for it, there is a ME. If you happen to live close to a university just wander on over to the philosophy department, find a science philosopher and pose the question. If you get anything but a resounding "Of course!", feel free to have them contact me via email.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 03-28-2003 8:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-29-2003 11:32 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 03-30-2003 3:12 AM Joralex has not replied
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 03-30-2003 8:11 AM Joralex has not replied
 Message 35 by edge, posted 03-30-2003 10:14 AM Joralex has not replied
 Message 36 by John, posted 03-30-2003 10:42 AM Joralex has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 67 (35754)
03-29-2003 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by edge
03-29-2003 10:24 AM


Absolutely...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a 'science of evolution' (SE) and there is also a 'metaphysic of evolution' (ME) and the two are definitely not the same. Repeatedly one sees the SE being used as 'bait' when it's the ME that is actually being promoted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An interesting assertion. Do you have evidence to back this up? Perhaps an example?"
See Message # 28. Also, I'd like to give you more but I'm out of time for today. Please prompt me and I'll be happy to provide you with further "evidence to back it up". Thanks.
In Christ,
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 03-29-2003 10:24 AM edge has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 30 of 67 (35762)
03-29-2003 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Joralex
03-29-2003 9:08 PM


Metaphysics for a non-starter
It seems to me very telling indeed that while you repeatedly pronounce that there is a metaphysic of evolution you equally seem at a loss to delineate its "systematic account" or the "general principles" colligated thereunder. Could you do so, your affected authority may be more persuasive.
For my part, I will not take your word for it - I will however take your explanation, as I would take that of anyone, if and only if it is sound and persuasive.
Will there be one forthcoming? If the metaphysic you claim is anything more than an artifact of your interpretation, it will be a "systematic account" - it should therefore be relatively simple to expound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Joralex, posted 03-29-2003 9:08 PM Joralex 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