Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:48 PM
132 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, edge, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 126 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   On The Limits of Human Talent
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 76 of 126 (712004)
11-25-2013 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
11-25-2013 11:06 AM


Re: Getting back on topic...
8 years ago?

Context suggests he's lying about the Dover Panda Trial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 11-25-2013 11:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 11-25-2013 5:30 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 77 of 126 (712016)
11-25-2013 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
11-25-2013 2:59 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
Dr Adequate writes:

Context suggests he's lying about the Dover Panda Trial.

Agreed, with the clarification that in my view the context only suggests the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, not lying. I think Marc sincerely believes all the crazy things he says.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2013 2:59 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 78 of 126 (712023)
11-25-2013 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Coyote
11-24-2013 10:42 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
marc9000 writes:

Scientifically, could be. But science isn't the only source of knowledge.

While that may be true, what are the other sources of knowledge?

History is one, and I'm not just referring to Biblical history, recent history of the past 200 to 300 years is very relevant, because it's closely associated with another source of knowledge, and that's how humans react to all of the differing situations history show that they've been involved with. Like how they behave when they're free, or when they're under the rule of a tyranny.

And to what degree are they subject to verification and falsification?

Concerning recent history and human behavior, it's relatively easy.

Science is something that we can rely on because it is based on data and theory, and here is why: if someone feels that a particular data set is too limited, or incorrect, they can gather new and perhaps more accurate data. Theory is a tool to explain that data, and it too is subject to verification and falsification. If you come up with data that a particular theory does not explain, then perhaps that theory needs to be revised or even discarded. That's not a problem, as it happens from time to time in science. The subsequent theory is even more accurate, and that's the goal of science.

That's true for here-and-now, nuts-and-bolts science. But it's not true for controversial "sciences", like thousands-of-lightyears astronomy, or global-warming-is-man-made sciences. The purpose of this paragraph from my O/P;

quote:
By "lean not on our own understanding", I don't think that means to stop short of attempts to learn all we can about the natural world. It means to stop short of using what we learn to put God (or God's word) to the test. To acknowledge that there are some things that humans will never be able to figure out, to the extent to be able to challenge anything the 66 book Bible says.

is to propose some sort of distinction between useful science, and wasteful science, or science that is philosophical. (intent on weakening the hold of religion.) The scientific community alone is never going to do it, it will continue to try to seamlessly blend them.

One of the nice things about science is that it is conducted in most all countries of the world, and by practitioners of most faiths--or of no faith. Results that are obtained by someone in one country, or a believer in one particular religion, can be checked by someone in another country or of another religion. If the scientific method is applied, it works everywhere and for everyone who applies it.

Communications being what they are, politics being what it is the world over, science is conducted under a unified leadership. Scientific community leaders the world over have developed a unified belief that religion is a distinct hindrance to many things it want to involve itself with.

You seem to disagree, for religious reasons, with the results of scientific inquiry. From this comes your distrust, or even hate, for science and the scientific method.

I got my first computer 12 years ago, and was immediately captivated by political forums. I remember seeing a sub-forum on another site entitled "creation versus evolution", and remember thinking "I sure don't want to get involved with that." But after a very short time discussing politics, right away I discovered that science and its associated atheism is by far the biggest breeding ground for political liberalism. Nothing else comes close.

I don't hate science, I just have a really justified mistrust for its leadership. Spending most of the last 12 years watching its incredible dishonesty concerning Intelligent Design.

What you need to do is start at the beginning and examine the actual data, and if you find it wanting, gather some additional data. Don't gripe about the method itself unless you can show that you have something better to offer.

I don't have a problem with most scientific data concerning useful science. When the scientific community says "The globe is warming" - that part I'm okay with. When they say "unrestricted free markets are causing it" and "we must do something about it", that's when I'd like to see these declarations disconnected, not all blended together as the scientific community is masterful at doing.

And here we are back at "science isn't the only source of knowledge." You will need to demonstrate that some other form of "knowledge" is worthy of inclusion in scientific research.

A knowledge of history, and a knowledge of human reaction to tyrannies of the past can be demonstrated. In the 1930's, some in the scientific community were warning us that we'd be all out of oil by...1950 or so. Or in the 1960's, when a huge percentage of the scientific community were warning us that there'd be mass starvation all over the planet by the year 2000, if we didn't do something about these crazy Catholics opposition to birth control. These were situations where the public didn't give in scientific scares in any meaningful way. Then there were other situations where big government (though not associated with science as far as I know) was more forceful, the prohibition era of the 1920's. Another source of knowledge is knowing how that was reacted to, how much bootlegging and law breaking was going on as a reaction to it. If we give the scientific community more political power to combat their perception of global warming, no one can predict just how free people and free markets will react. But it wouldn't be pretty. And it all would probably be irreversible. I think U.S. society STILL feels the damage from prohibition today. Same with the (again, non scientific) 55 mph speed limit that was thought to be so wonderful, and rammed through, even though the public didn't agree. No question the damage from that lingers. Lack of respect for police, routine speed limit breaking, etc.

But please remember, "divine" revelation, dogma, scripture and other unverifiable forms of "knowledge" have been found to be less than reliable. So, with what do you propose we supplement scientific research?

They've been verified in many ways. No matter how much the scientific community hates to admit it, it's a fact that the U.S. founders referred to the Bible as they were forming the constitution.

You seem to think that science is some kind of "special interest," while your particular religious belief is the norm, or obvious, position.

Concerning funding, and its desire to play God, with its embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and almost countless other things that are morally troublesome to many, it's a fact that the scientific community is a special interest. My particular religious belief, Missouri Synod Lutheranism, a basic conservative protestant denomination, may not be the norm. But a belief in the Judeo Christian God is pretty normal, in the western world.

This is not correct. Science, as it is based on verifiable evidence and tested theory, is the norm.

If it is in fact based on evidence and theory, yes. But not when it includes, and is seamlessly blended with, unlimited naturalistic philosophy.

Religions, of which there are upwards of 40,000 different denominations, sects, and other subdivisions around the world, is the opposite.

In the U.S. all those differing religions around the world mean little. None of them are permitted to control the government.

When scientists have a disagreement they go to the data.

The scientific community does have at least some control of the U.S. government. The activities of the EPA for example, are often based on far more than just data.

When a disagreement arises within a religion, the most likely outcome is a schism or split, as religion relies far more on dogma, belief, revelation, and other non-empirical forms of "evidence." Science is not a "special interest" -- religions (all 40,000+ flavors) are the special interest as they want science to kowtow to their unevidenced beliefs.

This is just an unevidenced, emotional cry from the scientific community with no data to back it up. Most religions aren't interested in science, unless science tries some intrusive things to weaken it's hold.

And your addition of the term "useful" to the requirement for science is bogus.

I've seen it on forums such as these many times in ID debates, "What USE is Intelligent Design?". When I find the time, maybe I'll look through the ID forums here and see if I can find some examples.

When conducting research, there is no guarantee whether the results will be useful or not.

True, in any area of science EXCEPT INTELLIGENT DESIGN. One of its entrance requirements was that it had to be proven useful. Maybe not formally, like at the Dover trial, but in forums like this, the claim was made, and no ID opponent questioned it.

Sometimes the findings are useful only in defining an avenue of research that appears to be unproductive. That's the way science works.

Appears to be unproductive to whom? Who judges it? Can you name me a couple of basic avenues of science have been dismissed?

So far science has found the religious claims that have been examined to be far less reliable, and hence less useful, than the results obtained through the scientific method.

I don't consider the scientific community to be the perfect arbiter of what's useful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2013 10:42 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2013 9:35 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 11-25-2013 10:19 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2013 1:45 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 79 of 126 (712026)
11-25-2013 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by marc9000
11-25-2013 8:38 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
The purpose of this paragraph from my O/P; is to propose some sort of distinction between useful science, and wasteful science, or science that is philosophical. (intent on weakening the hold of religion.)

Here's a distinction: the former actually exists, and the latter is the paranoid delusion of hysterical lunatics.

I've seen it on forums such as these many times in ID debates, "What USE is Intelligent Design?". When I find the time, maybe I'll look through the ID forums here and see if I can find some examples.

Here, let me help you. The phrase "What use is intelligent design" gets two google hits for the whole internet.

They've been verified in many ways. No matter how much the scientific community hates to admit it, it's a fact that the U.S. founders referred to the Bible as they were forming the constitution.

You win the Dumb Non Sequitur Of The Week Award.

So much stupid ... maybe I'll come back to it, but you're pretty much a hopeless case, are't you?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 8:38 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 80 of 126 (712027)
11-25-2013 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
11-25-2013 11:06 AM


Re: Getting back on topic...
Oh, no, I wasn't commenting about your ignorance of just science. I was referring to your profound general ignorance of almost everything. What you believe true seems based upon how many other people believe the same things, with nary a hint of a strategy for how you decide between differently believing groups of many people.

If I put fourth my personal beliefs in my own words, we saw earlier in the thread that I'm accused of only parroting the beliefs of my "sect", if I try to counter that by pointing out that I'm not alone in my beliefs, I see that I'm accused of just parroting many other people. Guess I just can't win. One of the regular claims of "scientific fact" by several scientific posters here is often based on the opinion of the majority of scientists.

Say what? One reason you garner so much negative attention is because you so often and so obviously contradict yourself. Here you deny saying that we aren't free to learn whatever we want about the natural world, but this is belied by your statement in Message 1 where you said, "It means to stop short of using what we learn to put God (or God's word) to the test."

So are you giving up on that position from your opening post? Let us know, okay?

You're just angry, and that causes your reading comprehension to go down. Dr. Adequate often has that problem as well.

Try to recognize the distinction between the terms "should not" and "not free to'. The "should not" part applies to decisions made by a society, who may not have unlimited funds to satisfy the desires of a special interest who may want to do wasteful things to satisfy its own private interests. The "not free to" part concerns the desires of a special interest who wants to do wasteful things, but does it with it's own funding. Clear?

8 years ago? This site has been around for nearly 13 years, and science for a lot longer. No one on the science side, either here in the last 13 years or anywhere within science over the past couple hundred years, has ever included useful (by which I think you mean of practical use, because science is always extremely useful in providing an understanding of the universe around us) as a required characteristic of science. This claimed change of yours of 8 years ago never happened. Not here, not anywhere. You're just making more things up that aren't true. Then when people call you on things like this, you whine that people are ganging up on you.

I was hoping you'd recognize 8 years ago as being the time of the Dover trial. The concept of Intelligent Design was being shouted down from every possible angle at that time, I'm not sure if the term "useful" was included during the Dover trial, but it was in some atheist forum I was posting at, at that time. The term was combined with everything else imaginable to get atheism the victory over Intelligent Design.

So the next time you feel moved to claim something incredibly ignorant, such as that something has to be useful to be considered science, why don't you do a little sleuthing around the Internet first. Maybe scan through the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on Science.

I was just repeating something that an atheist said on some Intelligent Design discussion. Again, when I get time I'll see if I can find it. One thing is for sure, his fellow atheists didn't go ballistic over HIM saying it.

No one's trying to "shout you off." We like creationists here. Without creationists there'd be no discussion.

Hahahaha, I can tell.

You're also failing to ask yourself how can you claim that many people believing the same thing is a valid basis for believing anything, when you know that there are many people who believe other things. Many people believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and that's your basis for claiming this is true. But many people believe the Earth is billions of years old, and given your criteria that many people believing something is a legitimate basis, that must be true, too.

All I was doing was trying to counter the accusation that my beliefs are my own crazy beliefs, or those of my "sect". I don't think it's a big deal - why that sends you into a rage I don't know. The scientific community constantly claims something as fact just because many scientists (or much of the brainwashed public) believes something, like man-made global warming, for instance.

So how do we determine which group is right? Scientific research.

That's it! Man-made global warming IS true!!! research proves it. So the scientific action to take is to create another government bureaucracy, put Al Gore in charge, and watch all the sheepy little U.S. citizens bow down to it's mandates. It's proven to work, remember how successful the 55 mph speed limit was? All the 70's movies and series made to show how stupid the police were? Wonderful stuff for children to watch.

Scientists are not interested in disproving religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs are not anywhere on scientist's radar when they're doing scientific research.

Also, many scientists are deeply religious, giving the lie to another of your ignorant claims, that science is atheistic. It would be more accurate to describe science as agnostic, in the same sense that plumbing and knitting are agnostic. Even more accurate would be to describe religion as irrelevant to science.

You have political correctness on your side, not much I can do about it. Political correctness is established usually just by repeating something over and over and over again, with plenty of help from the liberal news media.

The topic of this thread, as far as I can tell despite all your ramblings into other topics, is your belief that there should be some areas of scientific research considered off-limits, determined by whether they would test God's Word.

The topic of the thread is my response to this accusation;(from the O/P)

quote:
to elaborate on the merits of refusing to use our minds to think

Atheists clearly believe that humans know, or can know, everything there is about reality, and often know no bounds in spending public money to try to prove it. By questioning (in another thread) the wisdom of allowing unlimited, untestable, unfalsifiable, exploration to go on just so a special interest can feel good about itself, I was accused of promoting a refusal of "using our minds to think". That's what the topic of the thread is. It's been fun. (for me, anyway )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 11-25-2013 11:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2013 10:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 11-25-2013 11:16 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 85 by Tangle, posted 11-26-2013 4:00 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 86 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-26-2013 6:50 PM marc9000 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 81 of 126 (712028)
11-25-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by marc9000
11-25-2013 9:50 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
If I put fourth my personal beliefs in my own words, we saw earlier in the thread that I'm accused of only parroting the beliefs of my "sect", if I try to counter that by pointing out that I'm not alone in my beliefs, I see that I'm accused of just parroting many other people. Guess I just can't win. One of the regular claims of "scientific fact" by several scientific posters here is often based on the opinion of the majority of scientists.

All I was doing was trying to counter the accusation that my beliefs are my own crazy beliefs, or those of my "sect". I don't think it's a big deal - why that sends you into a rage I don't know. The scientific community constantly claims something as fact just because many scientists (or much of the brainwashed public) believes something, like man-made global warming, for instance.

What is the purpose of this whining? You have been asked to state your opinions. No-one intended this to give offense. We were just trying to find out what you think. If your opinions on the topic you raised in your OP are a secret, I don't see this thread going much further. Or why you started it in the first place.

You're just angry, and that causes your reading comprehension to go down. Dr. Adequate often has that problem as well.

Try to recognize the distinction between the terms "should not" and "not free to'. The "should not" part applies to decisions made by a society, who may not have unlimited funds to satisfy the desires of a special interest who may want to do wasteful things to satisfy its own private interests. The "not free to" part concerns the desires of a special interest who wants to do wasteful things, but does it with it's own funding. Clear?

Have you read your OP? Only the reason why Percy and I both know what you wrote in it is not caused by a shortage of reading comprehension. It's caused by being able to read.

I was hoping you'd recognize 8 years ago as being the time of the Dover trial. The concept of Intelligent Design was being shouted down from every possible angle at that time, I'm not sure if the term "useful" was included during the Dover trial, but it was in some atheist forum I was posting at, at that time. The term was combined with everything else imaginable to get atheism the victory over Intelligent Design.

Ah yes, I remember that in his summation Judge Jones explained how ultimately his decision was swayed by "some guy in some atheist forum marc9000 was posting at". Wait, no I don't. Are you feeling quite well?

Atheists clearly believe that humans know, or can know, everything there is about reality ...

What curious delusions you have about atheists.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 9:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 82 of 126 (712029)
11-25-2013 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by marc9000
11-25-2013 8:38 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
Hi Marc,

Coyote and I haven't discussed this, but when he asks about other sources of knowledge I don't think he has academic areas like history (or English or social studies) in mind, which he likely believes are as disciplined as science in their methods of gaining and validating knowledge. I think he's asking about the methods themselves for gaining and validating knowledge. History or English or social studies use principles and methods analogous to those of science for gaining knowledge, for instance by forming hypotheses and gathering evidence, even performing experiments when called for. They are not other ways of gaining knowledge.

To my mind the question Coyote is asking is rhetorical because there are no other methods. If you think other approaches exist then you should tell us what they are.

Scientific consensuses form when sufficient evidence amasses to convince a majority of the relevant scientific community. This evidence is gathered using the scientific method. When you think a scientific consensus is wrong (like global warming), what method of gaining knowledge are you using to challenge that consensus?

Since no other method exists, you can only challenge a scientific consensus by finding new evidence or new insights. Short of that, your challenge is empty.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 8:38 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by marc9000, posted 11-26-2013 7:55 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 83 of 126 (712030)
11-25-2013 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by marc9000
11-25-2013 9:50 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
Hi Marc,

I doubt anyone disagrees that amidst scarce resources we will be forced to make hard choices. If that's all you meant by not being free to research anything we like about the natural world then we can agree and move on.

In your opening post you stated that our efforts to extend our knowledge should not question God's Word. Are you still going to defend that position or have you abandoned it? Let us know, okay?

I was hoping you'd recognize 8 years ago as being the time of the Dover trial.

Oh, I recognized that, but your claim about a removal of a requirement of utility from science was completely unfamiliar. You go on to say this was not part of the Dover trial but was instead from a discussion board you participated at. It's likely you misunderstood what was being said. They weren't saying that ID isn't science because it lacks practical utility. They were saying that ID isn't science because it lacks the ability to tell us anything that is actually true about the natural world, which is the entire raison d'etre of science.

The scientific community constantly claims something as fact just because many scientists (or much of the brainwashed public) believes something, like man-made global warming, for instance.

You misunderstand again, this time about scientific consensus, which you'll recall arises in response to the amassing of sufficiently persuasive evidence. Global warming isn't true because there's a scientific consensus. Rather, there's a scientific consensus about global warming because it is likely true.

So how do we determine which group is right? Scientific research.

That's it! Man-made global warming IS true!!! research proves it. So the scientific action to take is to create another government bureaucracy, put Al Gore in charge, and watch all the sheepy little U.S. citizens bow down to it's mandates. It's proven to work, remember how successful the 55 mph speed limit was? All the 70's movies and series made to show how stupid the police were? Wonderful stuff for children to watch.

Now you're confused again. I said that the way to establish something scientifically is through scientific research, and you respond with complaints about the political process. If politicians were confronted by a scientific consensus that global warming is false they would be making different decisions than the ones they're making now. The way to change the scientific consensus, and thereby the resulting political decisions, is through scientific research.

If you prefer a political rather than scientific approach, then to change the way politicians respond to a scientific consensus that global warming is true you must elect politicians willing to ignore science. There are many of this type of politician already in office.

Atheists clearly believe that humans know, or can know, everything there is about reality, and often know no bounds in spending public money to try to prove it.

So much ignorance, so little time.

According to Wikipedia, less that 2% of Americans describe themselves as "atheist". The Southern Baptist Convention is 5% of Americans all by itself. Atheists as a political group are far too few in number to have any political influence.

Atheists do not believe we can know everything. You're thinking of scientists, but they don't believe that either. What scientists actually believe is that the scientific method is the best and most reliable way to increase our knowledge of the natural world.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 9:50 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 11-26-2013 8:41 PM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14747
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 84 of 126 (712031)
11-26-2013 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by marc9000
11-25-2013 8:38 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
quote:

That's true for here-and-now, nuts-and-bolts science. But it's not true for controversial "sciences", like thousands-of-lightyears astronomy, or global-warming-is-man-made sciences. The purpose of this paragraph from my O/P;

Of course this is untrue. All science is subject to verification and falsification - even the parts which contradict your dogmas.

quote:

is to propose some sort of distinction between useful science, and wasteful science, or science that is philosophical. (intent on weakening the hold of religion.) The scientific community alone is never going to do it, it will continue to try to seamlessly blend them

In other words, science must be prohibited from finding out that your dogmas are false.

quote:

I don't hate science, I just have a really justified mistrust for its leadership. Spending most of the last 12 years watching its incredible dishonesty concerning Intelligent Design.

The only "incredible dishonesty"? I've seen comes FROM the supporters of Intelligent Design.

quote:

I don't have a problem with most scientific data concerning useful science. When the scientific community says "The globe is warming" - that part I'm okay with. When they say "unrestricted free markets are causing it" and "we must do something about it", that's when I'd like to see these declarations disconnected, not all blended together as the scientific community is masterful at doing.

I don't think that anybody says that "unrestricted free markets" are causing Global Warming. "Carbon credits' are even an attempt to harness a free market.

But any economist will recognise that the free market as it exists doesn't have adequate controls for externalities, such as the effects of emissions. Some companies may choose to try and reduce them for the sake of good PR (or even out of moral conviction) but others will go on polluting and try to compete on price.

quote:

They've been verified in many ways. No matter how much the scientific community hates to admit it, it's a fact that the U.S. founders referred to the Bible as they were forming the constitution.

There's a massive non-sequitur. But the Bible has been found to be unreliable in many ways. And in fact it's really hard to understand why you'd want research that might challenge it suppressed unless you fear that it won't pass that test.

Now maybe some of the founders of the U.S. referred to the Bible in some way while writing the Constitution but it's also a fact that no specifically Biblical principles found their way into it and that the Constitution never invokes the Bible as a justification.

quote:

In the U.S. all those differing religions around the world mean little. None of them are permitted to control the government.

Of course it matters if you want to be FAIR - and follow the Constitution of the United States. If you want to be fair, you have to take the concerns of every religion into consideration. If you want your religion protected from scientific challenge then the same applies to the phoney history of The Book of Mormon, or the nonsense of Scientology.

quote:

The scientific community does have at least some control of the U.S. government. The activities of the EPA for example, are often based on far more than just data.

You mean that the EPA takes scientific findings into account ? Isn't that exactly what it should be doing ?

quote:

This is just an unevidenced, emotional cry from the scientific community with no data to back it up. Most religions aren't interested in science, unless science tries some intrusive things to weaken it's hold.

Let us note that your second sentence - and your posts in this thread - confirm that there ARE religionists who want to suppress scientific findings that contradict their religion. The evidence is there. Again this thread cones down not to the limits of human talent but the limits you want to place on human knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 8:38 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6663
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 85 of 126 (712033)
11-26-2013 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by marc9000
11-25-2013 9:50 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
Jon writes:

I was just repeating something that an atheist said on some Intelligent Design discussion. Again, when I get time I'll see if I can find it. One thing is for sure, his fellow atheists didn't go ballistic over HIM saying it.

You seem to prefer anecdote over scientific rigour, so let me tell you a true story about me.

I'm a hard-end atheist in that I go one step further than that devil Dawkins and am prepared to drop the 'probably' out of the slogan 'god probably doesn't exist.' That 'probably' is put in there because scientifically, it's correct - we can't know; we can only be sure beyond reasonable doubt. My statement that there is no god at all, is as much a belief as yours is that there is.

Now, I became an atheist before I knew anything at all about evolution, so please lodge somewhere in your brain that it is not always science - and particularly Darwin and his wickednes - that is the cause of atheism. My personal evidence to you is that it is not.

Secondly, much later in life, I heard about ID and got very excited about it. Perhaps it was right, perhaps ID demonstrates that evolutionary theory was wrong! So I started reading about it and at first found it very convincing. I thought it (Behe) was well researched and argued and I was going along with it.

In my naivety I thought that what i was reading was science. I had absolutely no idea that it was not from a standard scientific source - i had no reason to, because i had no idea that there was what you fundies in the states call a 'controversy'. So please believe me, i had no prior position on this stuff and if anything, wanted it to be true because i enjoy iconoclastic events in science.

But I contued reading around the subject and got increasingly annoyed by it all; it was a house of cards, a complete snow job done not for scientific purposes but for religious reasons. I found it hard to believe that religion would be so dishonest. I had no experience of the legnths believers would go to to distort and manipulate, I genuinely thought that believers were good people with a harmless delusion.

Of course we all know diferent now with the Catholic revelations of global child abuse, Islamic terrorism and so on, but back then, religion for me was just a dying and harmless hangnail from a bygone age.

Up til that point I'd had no interest at all in these sorts of discussions, here in the UK, religion is pretty much defunct as a political force, we're a secular society and religion, whilst it's still everywhere you go, is background noise only. We live and let live.

So what I'm trying to say is that your assumption/assertion that ID was dismissed because it wasn't useful, is very, very wrong. Science doesn't qualify facts and theories by whether they are useful or not - they stand on their own merits. Had ID been shown to be correct it would have been extraordinarily useful and science would have absorbed it into its lexicon. Hence my excitement. But it was shown to be wrong. And that's a rational end to it.

If you can't/won't accept all that as a general truth from the scientific community at least take it as a personal truth from this single atheist and non-scientist, me - ID was dismissed because it was WRONG, no other reason.

Edited by Tangle, : Copy/paste cock-up


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 9:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 922 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 86 of 126 (712071)
11-26-2013 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by marc9000
11-25-2013 9:50 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
I've seen it on forums such as these many times in ID debates, "What USE is Intelligent Design?". When I find the time, maybe I'll look through the ID forums here and see if I can find some examples.

When conducting research, there is no guarantee whether the results will be useful or not.

True, in any area of science EXCEPT INTELLIGENT DESIGN. One of its entrance requirements was that it had to be proven useful. Maybe not formally, like at the Dover trial, but in forums like this, the claim was made, and no ID opponent questioned it.

This has already been commented on but another variation won't hurt.
A theory has to make testable predictions. ID doesn't do that. It makes no 'useful' predictions. A theory has to make testable predictions otherwise the theory isn't 'useful'. I think you are focusing on the word that someone chose to illustrate a concept rather than upon the concept itself.

Everything was created last Thursday. Well alright, someone may believe that but it isn't a scientific theory. It makes no 'useful' predictions that can be tested. Therefore, by definition, it isn't science.

This is quite a different concept than that involved in the statement "This branch of science isn't very useful," which may simply mean there are no practical applications to benefit the condition of mankind.

Same word, different concepts.

The topic of the thread is my response to this accusation;(from the O/P)

quote:to elaborate on the merits of refusing to use our minds to think

Atheists clearly believe that humans know, or can know, everything there is about reality, and often know no bounds in spending public money to try to prove it. By questioning (in another thread) the wisdom of allowing unlimited, untestable, unfalsifiable, exploration to go on just so a special interest can feel good about itself, I was accused of promoting a refusal of "using our minds to think". That's what the topic of the thread is. It's been fun. (for me, anyway )

Specifically the exchange that gave birth to this thread was the following: (message 74, not so distant starlight problem, BB and cosmology)

quote:
I know people that believe the fossils of dinosaurs were specially fabricated by God to test our faith. I couldn't remain on board that boat.

This is a result of "putting God to the test", or "leaning on our own understanding".


So then studying fossils and attempting to understand the geologic history of our earth is in your view an untestable, unfalsifiable, special interest exploration? You feel it is on a par with ID in that respect?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by marc9000, posted 11-25-2013 9:50 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by marc9000, posted 11-26-2013 8:53 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 87 of 126 (712075)
11-26-2013 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by NosyNed
11-23-2013 10:10 PM


Re: Lost in Space
marc9000 writes:

All knowledge of rocket boosters, and other information about the mechanics of the trip, LOST. I don't have to look that up.

This is new news to me. I couldn't find any information on it. Can you give me a link or three please?

Here's the only link I have, I've had it bookmarked for a long time, it still works.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1678276/posts

This link is about lost pictures, I think there are others about lost film footage, etc. I saw an article in the local newspaper about 15 years ago that said if we were to return to the moon, everything would have to be done again from scratch. The two guys who designed the rocket boosters retired and took their designs with them, all drawings and documentation was lost, everything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 11-23-2013 10:10 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 8:02 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 90 by NosyNed, posted 11-26-2013 8:24 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 88 of 126 (712078)
11-26-2013 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
11-25-2013 10:19 PM


Re: Getting back on topic...
Coyote and I haven't discussed this, but when he asks about other sources of knowledge I don't think he has academic areas like history (or English or social studies) in mind, which he likely believes are as disciplined as science in their methods of gaining and validating knowledge. I think he's asking about the methods themselves for gaining and validating knowledge. History or English or social studies use principles and methods analogous to those of science for gaining knowledge, for instance by forming hypotheses and gathering evidence, even performing experiments when called for. They are not other ways of gaining knowledge.

There are other ways of gaining knowledge concerning science in two ways; 1) in contributing to determinations about what science is, and 2) contributing to determinations of how society should react to scientific findings. The scientific community should have a minor contribution to both of those things, but not a major one, because it is a special interest.

To my mind the question Coyote is asking is rhetorical because there are no other methods. If you think other approaches exist then you should tell us what they are.

Concerning number 1 above, it would be a public consensus on just what science is, what society can afford concerning its study, and opinion on how it measures up as a science, with ALL the criteria that Intelligent Design has failed to meet in the past decade or two as part of the consideration. Considered by political processes, not by the scientific community. Same with number 2 above, political processes.

Scientific consensuses form when sufficient evidence amasses to convince a majority of the relevant scientific community. This evidence is gathered using the scientific method. When you think a scientific consensus is wrong (like global warming), what method of gaining knowledge are you using to challenge that consensus?

The fact that I was outside for a while today and about froze my ass off, just as I have every November for the past half century. Then I combine that with the recent political events, like the fact that "global warming" is largely an outdated term. The more hip term today is "climate change", that doubles the pleasure for scientists and Democrats. They can call for political restrictions no matter if they show evidence for warming, or if new evidence is found for global cooling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 11-25-2013 10:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-26-2013 8:43 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 11-27-2013 6:52 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 89 of 126 (712079)
11-26-2013 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by marc9000
11-26-2013 7:36 PM


Just Rocket Science ...
This link is about lost pictures, I think there are others about lost film footage, etc. I saw an article in the local newspaper about 15 years ago that said if we were to return to the moon, everything would have to be done again from scratch. The two guys who designed the rocket boosters retired and took their designs with them, all drawings and documentation was lost, everything.

Even if true it is immaterial ... if we were to go to the moon again an entirely different approach would be used, probably one that would involve the space station and building the moon ship from modules sent there. It would most likely be designed for multiple trips to the moon and back, even for setting up a colony there.

There are also new things known about safety and design, new resources for solar energy and computer hardware, much more compact and lighter than was used before, new 3D design software that can model everything down to the nuts and bolts to streamline design and construction, so why on earth would anyone want to use the same design?

It would not be that difficult to do a whole new design ... after all, it's just rocket science ...

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ..


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 87 by marc9000, posted 11-26-2013 7:36 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by marc9000, posted 11-26-2013 9:02 PM RAZD has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 90 of 126 (712081)
11-26-2013 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by marc9000
11-26-2013 7:36 PM


Pictures
That isn't about lost pictures. It is discussing the lost film footage (the high quality originals anyway).

That may have been found.

In any case it isn't any sort of support for what you claimed.

...took their designs with them, all drawings and documentation was lost, everything.

This is the same assertion again. Again, what support do you have for this?

An aside: What is pointed out below is obviously correct. I wouldn't attempt to take a '60's vintage F1 design to Monaco next season and expect to do very well at all, would I?

I am sort of surprised that after the last few weeks you would continue to make statements that have no support and are very probably wrong. You have both a deficient BS detector and a limited ability to learn from past mistakes.
(aside from the fact that is it against the rules now).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by marc9000, posted 11-26-2013 7:36 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 11-26-2013 9:12 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019