Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins' Preachings
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 25 (164480)
12-01-2004 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 6:34 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
quote:
Common knowledge is agree upon by both the believer and none believer. They both see the purpose to say - lungs. That's right, purpose. We knew the sun was there before science, and we know our hearts beat.
Before science, people used to think that the brain was an organ for cooling the various humors of the body.
Before science, people did not understand the the Sun was actually a star, and that the moon reflected the sun's light and was not a light source itself.
Remember, Europe's Dark Ages were rife with religious superstition and beliefs that evil spirits and demons were the cause of disease. The Age of Enlightenment saw the birth of real scientific inquiry and many challenges to the commonly held myths and falsehoods of the past.
quote:
How can you conclude no higher intelligent agency?
Because I know of no evidence of a higher intelligent agency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 6:34 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 25 (164609)
12-02-2004 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Delbert Grady
12-01-2004 9:13 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
quote:
It doesn't matter if I cannot articulate the various natural structures "made up" by humans, what matters is that I feel it before it's evidenced. I notice what we feel is given far less importance than what we think, despite the two being both equally true/valid.It doesn't matter if I cannot articulate the various natural structures "made up" by humans, what matters is that I feel it before it's evidenced. I notice what we feel is given far less importance than what we think, despite the two being both equally true/valid.
Similarly, people used to "feel" that the brain was a cooling system for the body's humors.
They were eventually shown to be wrong, of course, once rational inquiry (i.e. dissection of human bodies) was widely done.
It is interesting that the taboo against dissection of bodies was maintained by the Christian Church.
Anyway, perhaps you can demonstrate the "feelings" you have about something in such a way that shows how they are just as reliable a descriptor of some phenomena as actual physical evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Delbert Grady, posted 12-01-2004 9:13 PM Delbert Grady has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 12-05-2004 12:02 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 25 (166012)
12-07-2004 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
12-05-2004 12:02 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
quote:
Are you saying you require evidence to know when you're hungry, or that somehow "knowing" you're hungry is evidence? Must be one or the other I'm afraid.
Well, we can test anyone's "feeling" that they are hungry. We can, through blood sugar analysis, MRI's to show brain activity, possibly ultrasound or endoscope views to show stomach muscle contractions, etc. to determine if someone who reports feeling hungry shows any difference in any of these factors compared to people who do not report feeling hungry.
We can also show, through animal brain lesioning tests, that it is possible to remove the ability for an animal to feel full, and it is possible to affect hunger and eating patterns in other ways as well.
So, I am afraid that it isn't as simple as you want it to be.
quote:
Even though you are rationalists, you force out unobservables, according to your convenience. For example, possible supernatural agencies.
Well, "it happened by magic" can always be invoked, but where does that leave you? What understanding have you gained into the workings of some phenomena? It doesn't increase understanding in the least. It causes inquiry and learning to cease completely.
quote:
Did Homo Erectus have knowledge that he hungered?
I imagine so, yes. It is a basic biological imperative to consume fuel.
quote:
Can we know things through our senses and feeling, and therefore without evidence?
Senses are not the same as feelings.
My sense of hearing is roughly the same as anyone else's with normal hearing. Same with my senses of sight and touch. My senses of smell and especially taste are possibly a bit better trained than average due to my profession, but the basic ability to taste and smell are the same as most people.
If 1000 people with normal ability to taste are given some a sample of ocean water to taste, I predict that well over 90% of them will report that it tastes salty.
Now, can we make the same claims about the similarities of people's subjective feelings?
quote:
Did he know he was hungry without evidence? Indeed, I suppose he never survived, and we don't exist - because he didn't have any science tools to evidence the fact that he was hungry.(Sarcasm).
Oh, but he did have science tools. He felt the sensation of pain in his belly that was a result of muscle contractions from his empty stomach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 12-05-2004 12:02 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by CK, posted 12-08-2004 8:30 AM nator has not replied
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 12-08-2004 12:01 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 25 (166295)
12-08-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
12-08-2004 12:01 PM


Re: I think I understand you...
quote:
The knowledge is already there Shraff, it precedes the evidence.
No, the feeling is there, from which one forms a hypothesis. Then we test the hypothesis by observing evidence.
quote:
It's correct that you can verify whether I'm hungry etc, That's a good point - and Jar made the same. But the knowledge that you are hungry - is still known and correct before the science (red).
No, it is a feeling that one is hungry.
quote:
So Homo Erectus didn't need science to know he was hungry
He used his senses to feel hungry. The sensory information that traveled along his nerves to the neurons in his brain caused him to feel hunger.
quote:
- as he couldn't do any experiment and didn't need to.
If he eats and stopps feeling hungry, or doesn't get to eat and the hunger goes away, he is doing a crude kind of experiment. Cause and effect.
quote:
My argument is that knowledge necessarily can precede evidence/science.
You are conflating "feelings" and "knowledge".
quote:
However, knowledge of hunger preceded the science
No, feelings of hunger preceeded the science.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-08-2004 04:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 12-08-2004 12:01 PM mike the wiz 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