Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 166 of 326 (461372)
03-24-2008 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Beretta
03-24-2008 6:17 AM


Re: Uniformatarianism
quote:
Uniformatarianism is based on an assumption formulated in the 18th century about how long they imagined it would take to lay down sediment based on the assumption that is only ever happened slowly at rates they could observe at that point in time.It's an extrapolation of that principle that gives the dates.
PRATT. This has already been refuted here at least 10 times and I've only recently joined. Furthermore, Uniformatarianism is supported at least partially though the science of radioactivity, the same science that is used in nuclear reactors. If the assumptions were invalid, then it stands that the rest of the science is invalid as well. Practical commercial application of this refutes such arguments that Uniformatarianism is false.
quote:
Well for a start nobody is trying to find a new or different set of natural laws.
For the simple reason that there is no evidence for other sets of laws.
You've already been warned for your substantial lack of any evidence.
If you have an argument with evidence, make it.
quote:
Neither is there any reason to randomly assume uniformatarian principles -that wipes out any possibility of a global event/s that may make that assumption null and void.
Nuclear power rejects such an assertion.
quote:
There are a lot of up and coming catastrophists amongst the geologists these days -they see what the uniformatarians cannot.That's the problem with historical science you see -nobody was there, assumptions are made and those assumptions may be completely in error.
Apparently you've never met a chemist. Furthermore, catastrophic events don't change rates. Many such events leave evidence of their existence in the record by having abnormal amounts, such as Iridium concentration.
quote:
I believe what I believe based on the evidence and so apparently do you.
If that was true, you'd present it. Since you have essentially failed in your 227 posts, it would suggest that your beliefs are indeed not based on evidence, but faith.
quote:
Oh I understand it just fine and so do a lot of scientists at AIG
Then why have you consistently ran from people who proved you did not?
quote:
As a matter of interest there are lots of other dating techniques apart from the radiometric ones -radiometric dating is very problematic -dates tend to be picked based on pre-existing misconceptions about what the date should be based on their pre-existing belief in the geologic column as formulated by the uniformatarians. Radiometric dating gives long ages which is why it is so popular. Methods of dating that give young dates are ignored because according to our belief system, they just can't be true.
Name me one form of dating that does what you say it does for co-gentic samples.
Not that I'm holding my breath. You've deliberately ignored my other posts for calling you out on your dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 6:17 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Blue Jay, posted 03-25-2008 12:24 AM obvious Child has replied
 Message 171 by Admin, posted 03-25-2008 8:15 AM obvious Child has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 167 of 326 (461373)
03-25-2008 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Beretta
03-24-2008 10:01 AM


Re: Faith vs Reality
Beretta writes:
You believe that truth is evolution and matter being the base of everything that is real and I don't.
You've said this several times in this thread, and I can't just let it slide anymore. Materialism is not the belief that the material world is all there is--it is the belief that the material world is all that we can study objectively.
We do not automatically reject God in order to study the material world, we just attempt to find the mechanisms by which the universe was originally formed and is being shaped, not who did it. This is, like Mr Jack said, because we have to answer to "the facts," of which we can objectively study none about God.
Beretta writes:
That's what science should be but unfortunately philosophy has crept in and now science makes pronouncements about reality beyond that which the evidence shows.
Such pronouncements would indeed by based on faith (unless they are logical extrapolations of consistent patterns). However, I am not aware of any. I'm sure producing some of these pronouncements for the purposes of exploring their basis (on faith or on evidence) would be acceptable on this thread. Why don't you do that?
I warn you, though: just because a scientist said it, doesn't mean it's science: I know a lot of Christian scientists (I am one, in fact). Hypotheses also do not count as "pronouncements of science," but as ideas that science may later pronounce after further testing and verification.
Beretta writes:
Percy writes:
Actually, except when responding to creationists, an evolutionist wouldn't mention God when explaining evolution.
No you're right, they would assume God's non-existance and extrapolate from that starting premise -which may not be true.
Strawman. Complete and ludicrous strawman. We wouldn't mention God because we can't say anything definitive and objective about Him (neither can you, actually). I believe in God, and I am a scientist (an evolutionist, too). The Big Bang theory does not spring from the assumption of God's non-existence: it springs from mathematical formulae, astronomical observations and even physicochemical analyses (no one of which disproves God, but every one of which fits better into BBT than into a literal translation of Genesis 1). Evolution likewise does not spring from the assumption that God doesn't exist: it springs from fossil morphology, genetic data, radiometric and other dating methods, ecological observations, mutation rates, reproductive and developmental observations, and a whole lot more.
Every one of these little pieces of data is fairly fragile on its own (as AiG will likely tell you a million times over). However, when taken in combination, they are completely insurmountable. Gaps and holes in the fossil record, nor missing geological layers, nor any other flaws in any one of these bits of data is a problem for evolution: we know the data is skimpy and imperfect, but we never professed to know everything, and we don't believe it all because we want to or because of some religious hope in it--we believe it because the vast network of data is best explained by it, however fragile the current explanation may be.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 10:01 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Beretta, posted 03-25-2008 11:48 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 168 of 326 (461374)
03-25-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by obvious Child
03-24-2008 11:31 PM


Re: Uniformitarianism
obvious Child writes:
PRATT. This has already been refuted here at least 10 times and I've only recently joined. Furthermore, Uniformatarianism is supported at least partially though the science of radioactivity, the same science that is used in nuclear reactors. If the assumptions were invalid, then it stands that the rest of the science is invalid as well. Practical commercial application of this refutes such arguments that Uniformatarianism is false.
To add to this, catastrophism does not have to be false for uniformitarianism to be true. In fact, there is good evidence that both are accurate in specific cases. For instance, at the end of many geological periods (e.g. Late Devonian, End Permian, K-T, etc.), we see radical, rapid changes in biodiversity across the globe. Yet, between these "catastrophes," we see gradual, local changes that conform quite well to uniformitarian principles.
Either way, catastrophes and gradual changes leave discernible traces. We pattern our "beliefs" after these discernible traces, and do not alter or reject the evidence in favor of the idea.
obvious Child writes:
Beretta writes:
Radiometric dating gives long ages which is why it is so popular. Methods of dating that give young dates are ignored because according to our belief system, they just can't be true.
Name me one form of dating that does what you say it does for co-gentic samples.
I stand with oC. I know of many different dating techniques (electron-spin resonance, magnetic reversals, over a dozen flavors of radiometric dating, dendrochronology, biostratigraphy, etc.), but I don't know of any that "give young dates."

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by obvious Child, posted 03-24-2008 11:31 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by obvious Child, posted 03-25-2008 3:49 AM Blue Jay has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 169 of 326 (461379)
03-25-2008 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Blue Jay
03-25-2008 12:24 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Agreed.
I suspect that Beretta is thinking of AiG articles which test non-cogenetic samples and then declare all dating wrong while not even discussing the age, make up and general characteristics of the samples themselves.
I'd love to see a reason why catastrophes would invalidate and change the basic laws of physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Blue Jay, posted 03-25-2008 12:24 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Beretta, posted 03-25-2008 8:19 AM obvious Child has replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 170 of 326 (461380)
03-25-2008 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Beretta
03-24-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Miller Experiment
Next time you should cite the Discovery Institute as your source.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php
And it's wrong about Holland's claim.
CB026: Toxic chemicals from abiogenesis experiments
CB035.3: Amino acids from simple atmosphere

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 10:56 AM Beretta has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 171 of 326 (461392)
03-25-2008 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by obvious Child
03-24-2008 11:31 PM


Moderation Issue
obvious Child writes:
Not that I'm holding my breath. You've deliberately ignored my other posts for calling you out on your dishonesty.
It's been requested a couple times now that you leave moderation issues to the moderators and keep discussion civil. We'll see you tomorrow.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by obvious Child, posted 03-24-2008 11:31 PM obvious Child has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 172 of 326 (461394)
03-25-2008 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by obvious Child
03-25-2008 3:49 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
I'd love to see a reason why catastrophes would invalidate and change the basic laws of physics.
Not the basic laws of physics only the interpretation of the geologic record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by obvious Child, posted 03-25-2008 3:49 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Admin, posted 03-25-2008 8:43 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 200 by obvious Child, posted 03-26-2008 5:54 PM Beretta has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 173 of 326 (461397)
03-25-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Beretta
03-25-2008 8:19 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Two things.
First...you have to wait 30 minutes between posts and you waste it on a one sentence message? One would think you'd elaborate at least a little on your interpretation of the geologic record. I said I'd be cracking down on bald unsupported assertions and this is it. Please don't do this any more.
Second, I've been saying this as Percy hoping you would pick up the hint, but no such luck, so here I am as Admin to state to you in no uncertain terms that you are off-topic in this thread. Either clarify how your position is on-topic, or find a thread where your line of argument would be on-topic, or propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].
I haven't been shy about stating what I want here at EvC Forum. Evidence, argument and rebuttal. Civility (because incivility derails discussion). And last but not least, focus on the topic. In your short time back you've violated all three more than once and you're still not suspended, but this is the last warning.
Nobody has ever been suspended at EvC Forum for their position. Without people with contrary opinions there would be no discussion, and discussion is what boards like this are all about. But we want *constructive* discussion here, discussion that actually gets somewhere. Those who participate persistently in a manner contrary to this goal will be suspended, for short periods at first, then for longer and longer periods of time until it becomes permanent. Rob is currently serving a 4-week suspension for persistently posting sermonettes, incoherent arguments and uncivil comments in the science forums, his next suspension will be permanent. You seem to have the same persistence in posting any way you feel like posting, so I just want to inform you that I can put you on the fast track out of here if that's what you wish.
Please, no replies.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Beretta, posted 03-25-2008 8:19 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 174 of 326 (461415)
03-25-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Blue Jay
03-25-2008 12:02 AM


Re: Faith vs Reality
We do not automatically reject God in order to study the material world, we just attempt to find the mechanisms by which the universe was originally formed
Well that's the problem you see. Nobody can necessarily know the mechanisms by which the world was originally formed because that is historical/origins science. What we can do is find what is happening now and guess what happened in the past but if God created the original forms of life, then one form of life giving rise to another form of life in long periods of time would be wrong. I don't say it is wrong, only that it may be completely wrong because none of us was there. We know how things vary now but we can't extrapolate it to include all biological forms because we can't know that, we can only guess and we will come to different conclusions in the presence/absence of 'God' in the equation. So it takes faith to attempt to explain it without God.Operational science is completely different.We can work with operational science and the laws of nature but not outside this because it is not testable, we cannot do repeatable experiments, we cannot afford to make philisophical statements in the absence of proof and for that we would need a time machine.
Because biological systems have biochemical similarities and homlogous structures as well as a common genetic code, we cannot conclude direct relationship, because a common designer may be an equally valid explanation. Cars may have a basic design principle but that doesn't mean that the one evolved from the other. All were intelligently designed using common ideas and principles.If they evolved at all, it was in the intelligent mind of the creators of the different cars.
Hypotheses also do not count as "pronouncements of science," but as ideas that science may later pronounce after further testing and verification.
Unfortunately evolution is taught as a fact in science because we can't prove that God exists but if He does, which presumably you believe, we have no right teaching it as if because 'science' says it is true and 'science' can only works with possible material causes, therefore the material explanation is the best we can do.
If God exists then what we are teaching may be a lie. Then we have indoctrination instead of teaching people to think and allowing for other possibilities which includes supernatural and instant creation of different life forms with built-in varability.
just because a scientist said it, doesn't mean it's science
Now there we have complete agreement.
Evolution likewise does not spring from the assumption that God doesn't exist: it springs from fossil morphology, genetic data, radiometric and other dating methods, ecological observations, mutation rates, reproductive and developmental observations, and a whole lot more.
So with all these observations, we make various assumptions. The problem is when we use the evidence selectively to support our basic beliefs. We observe basic stasis in the majority of the fossil record
and we decide that gradualism is true but the record is not complete so that is an assumption based on what we believe we are missing.
Gaps and holes in the fossil record, nor missing geological layers, nor any other flaws in any one of these bits of data is a problem for evolution
Nothing appears to be a problem for evolution to explain but is it true? Just because we can invent an explanation that fits our basic prejudice does not make it true? It makes it 'faith' in our basic assumptions.
we believe it because the vast network of data is best explained by it, however fragile the current explanation may be.
Fragile is a good word to use. Therefore it should not be taught as fact without allowing for the opposing evidence to be taught so that everybody may be allowed to think. Experimental science will not be affected if we allow for open doubts about the current paradigm belief system.
what is being taught about origins in science is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Blue Jay, posted 03-25-2008 12:02 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by FliesOnly, posted 03-25-2008 2:15 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 03-25-2008 3:36 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 180 by lyx2no, posted 03-25-2008 3:37 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 181 by DrJones*, posted 03-25-2008 4:03 PM Beretta has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 175 of 326 (461443)
03-25-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Beretta
03-25-2008 11:48 AM


Re: Faith vs Reality
Beretta writes:
So it takes faith to attempt to explain it without God.
No, Beretta, it does not take ANY faith to explain it without God. How many friggen times do you need this explained to you? We do not claim to know how it happened. No scientists has ever claimed to know how life originated. Instead, we have ideas, concepts, hypotheses as to how life MAY have gotten started. These hypotheses are based on scientifically sound principles. No faith is needed and none is used.
Creationists are the ones claiming to know how it happened. Creationists are the ones that need faith in order to explain how their God created life.
You have been told this repeatedly but you still pull out the "Science is Faith" bullshit. It's getting old.
Beretta writes:
Because biological systems have biochemical similarities and homlogous structures as well as a common genetic code, we cannot conclude direct relationship, because a common designer may be an equally valid explanation.
Yeah...a really stupid, incompetent, deceitful designer. After all, why else would he duplicate mistakes. Why else would he design things in a manner that so perfectly fit evolution? You ever heard of cladistics, Beretta? It does a most wonderful job of explaining relationships.
Beretta writes:
Unfortunately evolution is taught as a fact in science because we can't prove that God exists but if He does, which presumably you believe, we have no right teaching it as if because 'science' says it is true and 'science' can only works with possible material causes, therefore the material explanation is the best we can do.
What? We teach evolution as fact because we can't prove that God exists?
How about we teach evolution as a fact because it is, indeed, a fact.
Beretta writes:
Just because we can invent an explanation that fits our basic prejudice does not make it true? It makes it 'faith' in our basic assumptions.
Once again, you spout such utter nonsense. In science, we go where the evidence takes us. We have no preconceived notions nor do we invent explanations to fit our biased assumptions...but you have been told this repeatedly as well. You do this only so you can make your stupid claim of evolutionary theory being "faith based". That's crap, Beretta. It is the complete opposite from how science actually works, and you know this, as you have been told as such many, many times.
Beretta writes:
Therefore it should not be taught as fact without allowing for the opposing evidence to be taught so that everybody may be allowed to think.
What opposing evidence? You don't want everyone to think...you simply want to indoctrinate them into your Christian view of biblical creation. Be honest about it, Beretta.
Beretta writes:
Experimental science will not be affected if we allow for open doubts about the current paradigm belief system.
We do this already...it's called the scientific method and it is the reason we teach evolution in the manner we do. So I guess you can quit complaining about it....you have gotten (actually, you have always had) your wish. Thanks for playing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Beretta, posted 03-25-2008 11:48 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 03-25-2008 2:47 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 176 of 326 (461445)
03-25-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by FliesOnly
03-25-2008 2:15 PM


Re: Faith vs Reality
I've been asking Beretta to tone it down a bit, and I think he has. I can see you two have been over this ground before, but this is the first time you two have squared off in this thread. I've already put out notice that discussion will be dispassionate and civil or I will be handing out suspensions, and now I'm saying it again.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by FliesOnly, posted 03-25-2008 2:15 PM FliesOnly has not replied

OurCynic
Junior Member (Idle past 5842 days)
Posts: 18
From: Lakewood, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2008


Message 177 of 326 (461446)
03-25-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
03-12-2008 10:11 PM


faith and science: different systems?
I did read most of the posts on the thread, I thought maybe it would be nice to sort of get back to the initial topic. Since this is my first post here I will make this relatively brief.
quote:
Since I couldn't reply to it in the summations at the end of the Universe Race thread, and since it seems to be an interesting topic all its own, let's talk about how many of the faithful attempt to equate science with faith in order to claim equal validity.
Well I wasnt here for the Universe Race thread, but I can say that this statement is adversarial to me. Here's why:
The idea that I might equate faith with science for the purpose of claiming equal validity, would not be accurate in my case. I can at some times during a discussion try to make such a correlation, but not for the purposes of trying to somehow infer validity of faith. In my opinion, such an inference would be absurd anyway, because comparing one belief system to another does not make either one more or less valid because the other exists.
My belief in such an equation is rested on a few principles. Though I did however have a discussion with a friend of mine recently that opened my eyes to the validity of pragmatism in such a context. I'll start with my initial assumptions and then discuss from there to see if the discussion will render any useful insight to that discussion. Here are the principles.
Aristotelian logic (as kurt lewin saw it) was based on the notion that whatsoever was observed to happen, more than it was observed not to happen, must be a more accurate observation for the given event. This is a scientific foundation, its something that really if it were deconstructed, could be considered as simple as a belief, but the difference is in the observable evidence for a given event. So saying that whatsoever is believed more often than it is not, is not a valid assumption in this context.
Galilean logic dictated that aristotelian logic was flawed because it did not study exception, and in aristotelian logic one could easily make inferences between two differing events, and thus the conclusion would be in aristotles view, more true even though the observations themselves are from completely different events. So, in galilean logic it is important to know what is different, from a spectrum of events before making inferences about the truth of any given event.
The issue I take with this is that neither principle is made any more or less valid by the other. The study of an event, to be pragmatically valid while under investigation the conclusions drawn from the event must in either case be something which more than one person will arrive at, in true pragmatism all people must be capable of reviewing and repeating the same conclusions, if they are capable of performing the same investigations.
Aristotle and galileo were both capable of this, but for the purposes of this discussion I would have to conclude that galilean logic is more correct in my opinion because of the vast difference between spirituality and faith one cannot make inferences between the two.
My conclusion, is of course that spirituality and science have a lot in common as disciplines, because they both require some system of logic or belief. Something I call belief systems. But in my view, no system can be made more or less valid by a contrasting system. For example if I apply aristotelian logic to beliefs, I would reach the conclusion that whatever belief system is believed more often than it is not must be more true. But this would be an absurd statement, because there is no standard of proof for religious beliefs among people and as such, people and thier beliefs would need to be considered vastly differing events.
Still it fascinates me, that ideas in religious system of belief can also be in a way pragmatic, and that some conclusions in systems other than the later contemporary monotheist systems, can be drawn by using a system of belief based on science. But that is not to say, that faith and science can validate each other in any way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2008 10:11 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Rahvin, posted 03-25-2008 3:08 PM OurCynic has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 178 of 326 (461448)
03-25-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by OurCynic
03-25-2008 2:48 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
I did read most of the posts on the thread, I thought maybe it would be nice to sort of get back to the initial topic. Since this is my first post here I will make this relatively brief.
quote:
Since I couldn't reply to it in the summations at the end of the Universe Race thread, and since it seems to be an interesting topic all its own, let's talk about how many of the faithful attempt to equate science with faith in order to claim equal validity.
Well I wasnt here for the Universe Race thread, but I can say that this statement is adversarial to me. Here's why:
The idea that I might equate faith with science for the purpose of claiming equal validity, would not be accurate in my case. I can at some times during a discussion try to make such a correlation, but not for the purposes of trying to somehow infer validity of faith. In my opinion, such an inference would be absurd anyway, because comparing one belief system to another does not make either one more or less valid because the other exists.
So far you soud like a reasonable individual. In my OP I never proposed that faith was completely invalid, or that people are silly for relying on it. Faith relies on subjective experience instead of objective evidence. As you said, they are different systems, apples and oranges.
The problem, and the reason behind the OP, is that some individuals (you may have guessed that ICANT is one) feel the need to say that science depends on faith just as much as religion does. They want to say "you do it too!" so that their beliefs can be considered objectively valid, as science is.
My belief in such an equation is rested on a few principles. Though I did however have a discussion with a friend of mine recently that opened my eyes to the validity of pragmatism in such a context. I'll start with my initial assumptions and then discuss from there to see if the discussion will render any useful insight to that discussion. Here are the principles.
Aristotelian logic (as kurt lewin saw it) was based on the notion that whatsoever was observed to happen, more than it was observed not to happen, must be a more accurate observation for the given event. This is a scientific foundation, its something that really if it were deconstructed, could be considered as simple as a belief, but the difference is in the observable evidence for a given event. So saying that whatsoever is believed more often than it is not, is not a valid assumption in this context.
Galilean logic dictated that aristotelian logic was flawed because it did not study exception, and in aristotelian logic one could easily make inferences between two differing events, and thus the conclusion would be in aristotles view, more true even though the observations themselves are from completely different events. So, in galilean logic it is important to know what is different, from a spectrum of events before making inferences about the truth of any given event.
The issue I take with this is that neither principle is made any more or less valid by the other. The study of an event, to be pragmatically valid while under investigation the conclusions drawn from the event must in either case be something which more than one person will arrive at, in true pragmatism all people must be capable of reviewing and repeating the same conclusions, if they are capable of performing the same investigations.
Aristotle and galileo were both capable of this, but for the purposes of this discussion I would have to conclude that galilean logic is more correct in my opinion because of the vast difference between spirituality and faith one cannot make inferences between the two.
My conclusion, is of course that spirituality and science have a lot in common as disciplines, because they both require some system of logic or belief. Something I call belief systems. But in my view, no system can be made more or less valid by a contrasting system. For example if I apply aristotelian logic to beliefs, I would reach the conclusion that whatever belief system is believed more often than it is not must be more true. But this would be an absurd statement, because there is no standard of proof for religious beliefs among people and as such, people and thier beliefs would need to be considered vastly differing events.
You are correct in stating that both science and faith involve belief. The issue is that science trusts objective, repeatable evidence, and draws reasoned conclusions based on that evidence. Faith believes without objective evidence. The two are clearly different, and when representations of reality are concerned, objectivity is clearly superior to subjectivity. You can believe that the moon is made of cheese all you want - but it is demonstrably not so based on objective evidence. The belief that the moon is made of cheese is clearly not a representation of reality.
When you say "whatever belief system is believed more often than it is not must be more true" is absurd, you are also correct. Truth is not a democracy, and the validity of an argument cannot be based on the number of supporters it garners. That would be an appeal to authority - at certain points in human history, such a system would propose that the Earth is flat, that fairies control natural processes, and that volcanic eruptions are the result of Gaia's indigestion.
Again, objectivity is obviously superior when making an honest representation of reality. Subjective beliefs based on no objective evidence make for an extremely poor representation of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 2:48 PM OurCynic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 5:23 PM Rahvin has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 179 of 326 (461451)
03-25-2008 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Beretta
03-25-2008 11:48 AM


Re: Faith vs Reality
Beretta writes:
Well that's the problem you see. Nobody can necessarily know the mechanisms by which the world was originally formed because that is historical/origins science. What we can do is find what is happening now and guess what happened in the past...
This is so obviously false and has been rebutted so many times that we really shouldn't waste space in this thread going over it again.
Because biological systems have biochemical similarities and homlogous structures as well as a common genetic code, we cannot conclude direct relationship, because a common designer may be an equally valid explanation.
First, the mere existence of a theory is independent of the interpretive framework of competing theories. In other words, even if a designer were a valid competing theory, the evolutionary implications of the evidence still exist, they don't go away.
Second, evolution posits processes that we can readily observe, such as mutations and selection. You not only have never observed a designer designing (and presumably implementing), you don't even know how he designs because you have no evidence that might tell you.
Unfortunately evolution is taught as a fact in science because we can't prove that God...
The evolution taught in science class is accepted by scientists in the same way that physics, chemistry and geology are accepted by scientists, and it is the views accepted by scientists that comprise the broad body of science and which are taught in science class. It has nothing to do with God or faith.
If God exists then what we are teaching may be a lie.
Whether God exists or not, evolution is still the accepted scientific theory because the evidence has persuaded the community of scientists.
Then we have indoctrination instead of teaching people to think and allowing for other possibilities which includes supernatural and instant creation of different life forms with built-in varability.
I'm still concerned that you're not sincere about arguing the topic of this thread. If you really think science is faith-based then you already believe it includes things for which there is no evidence, like the supernatural.
We observe basic stasis in the majority of the fossil recordand we decide that gradualism is true but the record is not complete so that is an assumption based on what we believe we are missing.
If fossilization were not extremely rare we would be awash in bones from last years rodents alone.
Just because we can invent an explanation that fits our basic prejudice does not make it true? It makes it 'faith' in our basic assumptions.
Now read the above back to yourself as if I had written it to you, instead of you to me. Fits just as well, doesn't it. It isn't the case that evolutionists have prejudices and creationists do not. It isn't the case that evolutionists have faith in their basic assumptions and creationists do not. These are all human foibles, and we're all human.
So criticisms like this are a wash. The only way to settle discussions like this is to stay focused on the evidence and not allow ourselves to give way to believing the worst about our fellow man.
Therefore it should not be taught as fact without allowing for the opposing evidence to be taught so that everybody may be allowed to think.
You're coming back to this off-topic education issue again. We teach what scientists believe in science class. Creationists have to bring their evidence and arguments to the halls of science, and once scientists are convinced of it then creationism will naturally be taught in school because it is part of the prevailing scientific viewpoint. It would be a significant departure from current practise to teach something that less than 1% of scientists give any credence to.
If I could slip briefly into Admin mode, I see you have a history with FliesOnly, and I assume with others, too. Please make my job easier and stay on the topic, which is about whether science is faith based. This thread has nothing to do with science education or the truth or falsity of evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Beretta, posted 03-25-2008 11:48 AM Beretta has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 180 of 326 (461452)
03-25-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Beretta
03-25-2008 11:48 AM


Reality vs. Wishful Thinking
Are you suggesting that as I walk through the parking lot of the Cape Cod Mall, as I see little knicks and dings on peoples cars, that I am unable to determine that a car with a full quarter panel crushed, a plastic bag for a passenger side window and an optical orange smear running its full length, has suffered more than the average wear and tear of usage? Or that the reason that I am unable to make this distinction between a steady state process and a catastrophic process is due to some mind set of mine? Or that without a time machine any assumption of what might be the story behind the mashed car would be pointless?
I have casually noticed that SUV’s have a much higher number of crushed rear bumpers than do sedans. Do I surmise that folks more frequently tail gate SUV’s than sedans, or that folks in SUV’s back into things more frequently then do folks in sedans? Or do I need a time machine?
One of your kids returns the car with a back seat full of empties and the bumper stove, and he denies anything happened; do you throw your hands in the air saying there is then nothing to be done because you weren’t there to see it so can’t make any guesses as to what did happened? Can I borrow your car?
Everyday everyone everywhere develops hypotheses based on observational evidence without a time machine. Upon closer observation many of those observations can be falsified while many others can be confirmed.
The only time machine needed we have. I can still look today at fossilized sand dunes and conclude they were once regular old, blowy* around, sand dunes. Closer observation of the sand grains confirms they were blowy dunes and not washy* dunes. Or perhaps the grains contradict the blowy idea and force me to re-guess. And if the grains don’t a peer will.
And there are hundreds and thousands of such time machines in every last rock quarry and road cut on Earth, and all pointing to the same story. And if I misread the record, a record available to any and all, a peer will read it differently. And if there’s a fight to be had both she and I have enough incentive to be right that neither will bow out: current theory be damned. Quite frankly, I’d not mind having Darwin’s Theory replaced by Dupee’s Theory. And that after one-hundred and sixty years we don't instead have a Tom, Dick and Harry’s Theory is testament itself to the strength of Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) wonderful idea. (It wasn’t Tom Darwin and Dick Wallace, was it?)
Your inconcludiblity* theory leaves much to be desired.
Unfortunately evolution is taught as a fact in science because we can't prove that God exists
That evolution is taught as a fact has nothing to do with God at all. If God is the ultimate creator what he created was evolution. You, quite frankly, are in the position of not only denying the very clear message he left for us to read, but leading the children away from it too. I think Jesus had something to say about that. You might want to check.
As for myself, I just love the way that God allows mutations in gene to accumulate without generalized expression throughout the entire species. Only the rare individuals with the short-limb genes will have shorter than usual limbs. But then, praise be You-Know-Whom, when the climate cools the short limbed individuals suffer less frost bite than their longer limbed pals ” the ones who used to meanly out compete them just because they could run faster ” I’d not be surprised if, out of shear spite or animosity, they wouldn’t even breed with those stretched out freaks anymore. Next thing you know five-thousand generations have past and a further accumulation of copying errors make it impossible for them to mate. The Lord works in mysterious way; just not ones that are too mysterious for you to accept.
The problem is when we use the evidence selectively to support our basic beliefs.
Yeah, that is a problem.
Just because we can invent an explanation that fits our basic prejudice does not make it true?
Agreed. Much more likely to be true when they fit our basic evidences.
. allowing for the opposing evidence to be taught .
Maybe so, but we’ve got 55 minutes to fill. I suppose the kids could use the extra fifty minutes to do their English homework.
*Part of the English homework those kids need to do.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

Kindly
******
Pragmatic to the end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Beretta, posted 03-25-2008 11:48 AM Beretta 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