|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How long does it take to evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are other threads where it would be on-topic for you to be wrong about this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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, : threadby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lamden Junior Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 25 From: Lakewood Joined: |
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 positionskepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidencedoes 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 issuewith 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 doctrinethat 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 lawcannot 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2397 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined:
|
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 positionskepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidencedoes 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 issuewith 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 doctrinethat 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 lawcannot 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024