Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 16 of 62 (563429)
06-04-2010 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by AnswersInGenitals
06-04-2010 3:47 PM


Re: Uh-uhh.
Intelligent design seems to be just one of those Theories of Everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 06-04-2010 3:47 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 17 of 62 (563803)
06-06-2010 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
06-04-2010 7:30 AM


Re: science and tentativity and trust
http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.html
Here is your link.
You make some good points. And i can't disagree with them all. But i do disagree that all science is tentative. some things are objectively true.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2010 7:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2010 10:14 PM tesla has replied
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 06-10-2010 5:21 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 18 of 62 (563805)
06-06-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by bluescat48
06-04-2010 1:21 AM


Re: magnum
right. Other than the obvios. So I'm trying to point it out. Then maybe we will. Depends on what true analysis confirms.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2010 1:21 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 19 of 62 (563807)
06-06-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
06-03-2010 11:12 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
quote:
Creationists are in no position to lecture science on how science should be done.
Sure they are. You think no scientists are creationists?
Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science.
It is worse when a scientist is so closed minded they take the position of "there is no God" instead of " i don't know if there is a God." Because science has zero proof that God does not exist other than God wont obey THEM.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 06-03-2010 11:12 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 06-06-2010 10:09 PM tesla has replied
 Message 22 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-07-2010 12:37 AM tesla has replied
 Message 23 by bluescat48, posted 06-07-2010 12:04 PM tesla has replied
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 06-07-2010 3:02 PM tesla has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 20 of 62 (563815)
06-06-2010 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by tesla
06-06-2010 9:38 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
quote:
Creationists are in no position to lecture science on how science should be done.
Sure they are. You think no scientists are creationists?
Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science.
Scientists might be creationists, but the extreme bible-literalist creationists cannot be considered scientists.
They have to, by definition, ignore, deny, or misrepresent any evidence that contradicts their a priori religious beliefs. You can't do that and be a scientist. Every word you publish and every result you claim will have to be independently verified before it can be trusted.
You might be a technician (a doctor, engineer, or mathematician, for example), but when you accept scripture and "divine" revelation as the ultimate forms of knowledge, you have turned your back on science and the scientific method and you are no longer doing science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:38 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 8:09 AM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 62 (563817)
06-06-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by tesla
06-06-2010 9:34 PM


Re: science and tentativity and trust
Thanks tesla,
Curiously, that is only one person's logical argument for the existence of objective reality -- "whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not" -- rather than a general rule of science as you asserted.
As I pointed out, this is rather just an example of how the assumption of objective reality is part of the foundation of many worldviews, not just science.
Note that, as a logical argument, it is only true if the premises are true. At some point we assume the truth, and that makes all conclusions based on that assumption necessarily tentative.
But i do disagree that all science is tentative.
Amusingly, you can also disagree that the earth orbits the sun, but this does not change reality.
some things are objectively true.
We can agree, for the sake of argument, that evidence is objectively true.
We can agree, for the sake of argument, that multiple consilient experiences of many people of certain evidence/s can be indicative of a high degree of confidence that the experiences involved reality.
This, however, does not mean that science - the branch of knowledge that tries to explain the evidence - is not tentative.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : this not the

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:34 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 7:52 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 22 of 62 (563832)
06-07-2010 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by tesla
06-06-2010 9:38 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
tesla writes:
Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science.
People who believe that the creator of the universe takes an active interest in them personally, to the extent that they believe/expect particular real-world outcomes in their lives to result from God's actions in response to their prayers, must either maintain a "wall of separation" between their religious faith and their objective/science-like activities, or else fail pretty badly at science.
Maybe you're not one of those people who believe in "the efficacy of prayer", and you don't consider your creator to be an entity that actively intervenes in your life according to your expressed desires. If so, then you've passed one of the major obstructions that religion puts in the way of both scientific and personal progress.
But the ability to do good science requires more than that. An essential skill that you seem to have trouble with is the ability to consistently use terminology in accordance with accepted or specified definitions -- that is, to maintain accuracy in your usage of terms, avoiding ambiguity and equivocation.
It is worse when a scientist is so closed minded they take the position of "there is no God" instead of " i don't know if there is a God."
If you're talking about individual personalities who are commenting on their personal atheism or agnosticism, you're entitled to your own opinion that one notion is worse than the other. But if you're talking about the practice of scientific inquiry and research, it's a moot distinction.
Whether or not there is a God, science is concerned with understanding natural processes and explaining them in natural terms that can be confirmed by independent observation, without reference to any religious doctrine. This is not a matter of "anti-religious bias", as the ID-proponentists claim; it's just a very simple and effective set of ground rules for answering questions and resolving disputes: let the evidence be the guide. {AbE: And when the evidence is insufficient to guide you, get more and better evidence.}
When an explanation appeals to divine/supernatural agency, it ceases to be a scientific explanation, by definition, because it has failed to provide a fully observational basis for its assertions. You can't be good at science if you don't understand this.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (addition as noted in next-to-last paragraph)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (fixed incorrect position of added text)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:38 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 8:05 AM Otto Tellick has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 23 of 62 (563930)
06-07-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by tesla
06-06-2010 9:38 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
It is worse when a scientist is so closed minded they take the position of "there is no God" instead of " i don't know if there is a God." Because science has zero proof that God does not exist other than God wont obey THEM.
The point is that a scientist must be objective to the existence or not of deities. Their belief or lack of belief must in no way affect the scientific inquiry. One must draw a line between religion and science.
If there is no separation, there is no science.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:38 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 7:57 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 24 of 62 (563978)
06-07-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by tesla
06-06-2010 9:38 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
You think no scientists are creationists?
How many of these creationist scientists are doing original creationist research and testing creationist hypotheses? How many of these studies are getting published in peer reviewed journals?
Scientist is not a title. It describes an activity.
Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science.
But you can't do science by inserting unevidenced and untestable variables into your hypotheses.
Because science has zero proof that God does not exist other than God wont obey THEM.
Negative argument fallacy. Science has zero proof that Leprechauns do not exist, and yet I don't see why scientists should make them a part of science. Can you explain why Leprechauns should not be a part of science since no one can prove that they don't exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:38 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 7:48 AM Taq has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 25 of 62 (564382)
06-10-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taq
06-07-2010 3:02 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
quote:
Scientist is not a title. It describes an activity.
Exactly. Because a scientist believes in God does not mean he is not good at science.
quote:
Negative argument fallacy. Science has zero proof that Leprechauns do not exist, and yet I don't see why scientists should make them a part of science. Can you explain why Leprechauns should not be a part of science since no one can prove that they don't exist?
The point is God is a REAL possibility.
Look. If you thought a neutron had the capability of turning into an electron within the proper environment, yet had no proof accept the theory based on the disappearance of a neutron and emergence of an electron, Then you would consider it a variable in the equation of the dynamic you witnessed. Even without proof. you would consider the possibility.
Life IS. Existing IS. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the most accepted theory of man for this dynamic to be possible? If God IS, He probably isn't what you want him to be. But it isn't going to matter what you think in the end. You can die. But God will live. and i believe what God says IS; WILL be. like it or not.
Now with that a really great possibility, Isn't it worth the time since you EXIST to try to understand and answer the question of God and reality? If you choose to accept God and your wrong in the end. fine your dead. If you decide there is no God and there is; your screwed.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 06-07-2010 3:02 PM Taq has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 26 of 62 (564384)
06-10-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
06-06-2010 10:14 PM


Re: science and tentativity and trust
quote:
This, however, does not mean that science - the branch of knowledge that tries to explain the evidence - is not tentative
Neither does it mean that it isn't definite.
as i always say, i AM. definitely.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2010 10:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 27 of 62 (564387)
06-10-2010 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by bluescat48
06-07-2010 12:04 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
quote:
The point is that a scientist must be objective to the existence or not of deities
Yeah I'd like to think that..So why are so many proclaiming that God is as much a variable as a leprechaun? They choose the belief he's an impossibility. What kind of scientist would ignore such a huge possibility with massive repercussions if they are wrong? based on what evidence for no God? Lack of proof he is? We exist don't we? isn't "how can we exist" a question that God would be the best explanation for? what more proof do they need to even entertain the idea?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by bluescat48, posted 06-07-2010 12:04 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by bluescat48, posted 06-10-2010 10:32 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 28 of 62 (564388)
06-10-2010 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Otto Tellick
06-07-2010 12:37 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
I do believe in prayer.
quote:
When an explanation appeals to divine/supernatural agency, it ceases to be a scientific explanation, by definition, because it has failed to provide a fully observational basis for its assertions. You can't be good at science if you don't understand this.
And scientist are ignorant because they fail to understand that supernatural means it is beyond your current ability to understand, but that all things are natural once understood.
There are plenty of "supernatural things to boggle the mind. Edgar Cayce or like psychics and such are real anomalies without much explanation. But its real.
How can a scientist be good at explaining the world around them if they ignore some of the greatest mysteries that we'd like explained?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-07-2010 12:37 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-11-2010 11:38 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 29 of 62 (564390)
06-10-2010 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Coyote
06-06-2010 10:09 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
Again you infer religion anytime you see "God" in an argument. God can be discussed without inserting religion.
That's how the creation argument should be discussed within science.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 06-06-2010 10:09 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by AZPaul3, posted 06-10-2010 10:39 AM tesla has replied
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 06-10-2010 10:54 AM tesla has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 30 of 62 (564407)
06-10-2010 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by tesla
06-10-2010 7:57 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
Tesla's Quote mine writes:
The point is that a scientist must be objective to the existence or not of deities
my entire statement writes:
The point is that a scientist must be objective to the existence or not of deities. Their belief or lack of belief must in no way affect the scientific inquiry. One must draw a line between religion and science.
If there is no separation, there is no science.
Tesla's response writes:
Yeah I'd like to think that..So why are so many proclaiming that God is as much a variable as a leprechaun? They choose the belief he's an impossibility. What kind of scientist would ignore such a huge possibility with massive repercussions if they are wrong? based on what evidence for no God? Lack of proof he is? We exist don't we? isn't "how can we exist" a question that God would be the best explanation for? what more proof do they need to even entertain the idea?
Tesla, you miss the point I was trying to convey. Science & Religion must be separated from inquiry so as not to taint the results. It also must be that whether gods exist or not, cannot affect the way the results are perceived. That is the objectivity I was stating. A person's religious views have to be separated from the inquiry.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 7:57 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 7:10 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024