Heavy stuff.
I daresay that we are not as pure in our methodology and epistemology as we describe ourselves to creationists. And, "knowing" that, deep down, our side of the debate is based on something superior is frankly a moot point if we're not constantly applying that superior methodology in everything we argue.
You are right. I wasn't really saying that such behaviour is justified in the context of any individual debate. I was more saying that it is the underlying reason why us evos might take the slacker approach in practise at times. Maybe without even consciously doing so we are assuming that the methods of science speak for themselves. But what you say here puts paid to simply asserting that as a reasonable approach in any given specific evidence based argument. I accept that.
"My conclusion is scientific your is not" - Is not an adequate response even if we are all tempted to effectively say that to creos at times.
If I'm arguing for evolution because I "know," fundamentally, that evolution is based on a better methodology, then I'm not really using the methodology that I deem superior, am I?
The only way to show its superiority is to use it.
Well yes. And no. It isn't like there is not a respective track record of success and failure to refer to. But you are right that simply relying on an existing track record is ultimately unjustifiable even if in practise it is sometimes inevitably going to happen. Consciously or otherwise.
Remember, that's what we accuse the creationists of doing! They "know" that, deep down, their side of the debate is based on something superior, even if they can't make the connections on their own, so they doggedly push on, refusing to give an inch.
I'm not sure anyone on the evo side would say that they refuse to give an inch on principle. Nor do I think this is about just "knowing" that scientific evidence and conclusions are superior in the way you seem to be implying.
The scientific method in it's broadest sense is used by all of us all of the time in our everyday lives to make the most reliable conclusions about the real world possible. If your car won't start you don't sit there and subjectively dwell on how you feel about the concept of cars to find an answer to this problem. You don't interpret bits of ancient poetic texts in order to find metaphorical inspiration and hope that the car will just fix itself by magic. No - You apply what you know about cars (or seek what others have discovered by means of evidence and reason) to come up with a best guess answer and then work out how that can be tested then you test it and eliminate certain possibilities. In this manner we narrow in on the problem and eventualy (hopefully) the answer. On the basis of reason and physical evidence. A broken car is an obvious example. But we all do it for everything all of the time. It is how we all continually and unthinkingly interract with the external world around us. The best route home from work. The best way to cook spaghetti. The most reliable way to stay warm in the cold. Whatever.
What I am trying to say is that conclusions based on physical evidence and reason are not the exclusive domain of science. It isn't a question of just "knowing" (as you put it) that evolution is superior because it is labelled as "science" and poo pooing all else on some sort of baseless world view point of principle. Rather it is a question of "knowing" from continual and repeated and ongoing interraction with reality that physical evidence and reason are the best practical ways of making reliable conclusions. If on the basis of that we accept some forms of knowledge and some specific conclusions as superior (i.e. those that meet the criteria of being based on physical evidence and reason - especially if formalised for maximum effect) rather than those that are made on the basis of some other method of "knowing".. Well I think that is wholly justified. If someone starts making equally or even more demonstrably reliable conclusions on the basis of some other methodology then I am sure it wil catch on rather quickly.
True - We can be accused of taking the word of experts rather than examining all the evidence for ourselves. Maybe not all the things we are assuming are so obviously scientifically evidenced are as physically evidenced as we might be assuming. But from a practical point of view this is again inevitable.
But whatever the case the belief that scientific conclusions based on the formalisation of physical evidence and reason are superior is not just a case of unjustifiably "knowing" that our methods are better as you imply. It is based on everything we all experience all of the time.
My assessment is that most evolutionists are essentially the same way. I think I'm that way, and nothing upsets me more than that.
I think you are being hard on yourself. And others. And I think you are missing why exactly it is that we think physical evidence combined with logic and reason is the best means of drawing demonstrably reliable conclusions.
We don't just "know" this. We experience it. All of us. All of the time.
And, "knowing" that, deep down, our side of the debate is based on something superior is frankly a moot point if we're not constantly applying that superior methodology in everything we argue
The only way to show its superiority is to use it.
I guess my argument boils down to the fact that we
are using it.
Constantly.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
