Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
37 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, GDR, Theodoric (5 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,999 Year: 22,035/19,786 Month: 598/1,834 Week: 98/500 Day: 56/42 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Understanding (hypothetically)
derwood
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 46 of 69 (187543)
02-22-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Brian
02-20-2005 3:28 PM


Re: You've reproduced????
Hey Brian - how DID you get that picture of your dad?

Oh, and gee, I'm real sorry Brad to point out the incomprehensibility and irrelevance of your posts.

This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-22-2005 16:07 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Brian, posted 02-20-2005 3:28 PM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AdminJar, posted 02-22-2005 4:09 PM derwood has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Brad McFall, posted 02-23-2005 8:40 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 69 (187545)
02-22-2005 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by derwood
02-22-2005 4:05 PM


That doesn't cut it.
You need to try a better apology. You have behaved in violation of forum guidelines. I'm very serious about this and unless you improve your posting skills I WILL sanction your privileges.

To give you time to think about it your posting privileges are suspended for 24 hours.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by derwood, posted 02-22-2005 4:05 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 69 (187696)
02-23-2005 5:46 AM


From the absurd to the farcical.

Racist jokes = OK. Pointing out nonsense = suspension.

Great values on display.


Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Brad McFall, posted 02-23-2005 6:33 AM contracycle has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 02-24-2005 10:39 AM contracycle has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3372 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 49 of 69 (187699)
02-23-2005 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by contracycle
02-23-2005 5:46 AM


Agassiz
quote:
SECTION IX Range of Geogrpahical Distribution of Animals.
The surface of the earth being partly formed by water and partly by land and the organization of all living beings standing in close relation to the one or the other of these mediums it is in the nature of things...as far as the primary divisions of animals are concerned and the nature of the medium to which they are adapted does not interferere..."

If you want me suspended why dont you tell the admins here-
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=199&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=199&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=19&t=199&m=1
I will be happy to oblige. I am happy enough to write my own book without being stoped before I can explain . I added the picture as a preparation to an explanation. Please dont turn ever post I make into finnegans awake.

Percy- I remember why the "hand" is down. I was trying to get people to see the post below it. Things have changed since then havent they?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by contracycle, posted 02-23-2005 5:46 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3372 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 50 of 69 (187718)
02-23-2005 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by derwood
02-22-2005 4:05 PM


Re: You've reproduced????
Your "and" seems misplaced. It was more about the logical extensions possible of the following and less about the medium itself.

"Mathematical Physics" Jeffreys Cambridge 1950p5

Measurement in terms oof a unit is too usefule a procdeure to be lightly abandoned, and it could be retained,consistently with Euclid's theorem , in any of the following ways: (1) Since an infinite number of pairs of integers x, y can be found such that x^2+y^2=z^2, where z is another integer,and so that x/y is as near 1 as we like, we could suppose that the sides of a right-angled triangle satisfyt x^2+y^2=z^2 exactly but that x=y ia nor true wxactly but only within the errors of measurement,and the sides are always exact multiples of some definite length.(2) We might say that x/y can be exact but x^2+y^2=z^2 is only approximate. (3) We can say that the language of rational numbers is not enough for what we need to say, and we need a fuller language...but the 19th century investigations of Dedekind, Cantor,and others have established their workability for all practical purposes."

I need an English language able to support more than ONE REAL NUMBER DIMENSIONAL SYNTHESIS.Communication via computers permits this but not if the functionality is abused on purpose or for destructive only seasons.

...was

quote:
in which x=y and x^2+y^2=x^2 can be both said consistently. The last alternative is the one that has been universally adpoted by the admission to arithmetic of irrational numbers. It does not contradict Euclid's axioms; the first does, since he assumes that a line can have any length, and the second contradicts one of the best-known consequences. An experimental proof that it is right is impossible because either (1) or (2) could be true within errors of measurement even if x,y,z were restricted to integers. But they would be intolerably complicted, and the adoption of either would require the existence of an unknown and indeterminable standard of length such that all actual lengths are exact multiples of it, besides abandoning the simplicity of Euclid's rules whithout experimental reason. The universal practice in physics is to adopt alternative (3) and create a language of sufficient generality. We introduce real numbers and assume that the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division can be applied to them in such a way that the same fundamental rules as for rational numbers are satisfied, and that an ordering relation satisfying rules (10-(15) can be defined. They differ from the rationals in possessing a certain property of completeness, which ensures, f
or instance, that there is a real number sqrt2 whose sq is TWO.(format altered by me) It is not obvious that this can be done without inconsistancy (and it was certainly believed for 2000 years that real numbers were meaningless*)(* hence the name 'irrational numbers.') but the 19th century investigations of Dedkind, Cantor..."

I would say we are STILL in the MittagLefler comment to Cantor frame of 100 yrs later"" but that time came up in the 80s. One number off is not much. I AM SAYING that reale numbers of real numbers ARE NEEDED in biology. That was all. GoodDay!

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-23-2005 12:24 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by derwood, posted 02-22-2005 4:05 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 69 (187880)
02-23-2005 6:16 PM


SLPx reinstated.
But I still expect your next post to be an apolgy for your unwarranted comments to Brad.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 52 of 69 (188097)
02-24-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by contracycle
02-23-2005 5:46 AM


Please see Message 22. While board administration is not infallible, it is the majority opinion of moderators that Brad is difficult to understand but well-intentioned.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by contracycle, posted 02-23-2005 5:46 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by contracycle, posted 02-25-2005 4:15 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3372 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 53 of 69 (188224)
02-24-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by berberry
02-21-2005 10:51 PM


Re: A shout-out for the Snik!
Here is a way that we might be able to USE Snikwad’s insight into my own idea.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=124&m=23#23
A similar concept to what you may be propounding might be that a closed set, i.e. (1, 2) can be defined to be a “kind” which allows for “infinite variation” given that the numbers that fall between 1 and 2 are infinite. Yet this set does not include members of another “kind” i.e. (3, 4).

This allows for infinite variation within a kind


It also establishes how I THINK in Crashfrog’s words but dont(
I don't think it's clear in the least what ordered atomic states have to do with the descent of organisms with modification.
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=349&m=8#5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=349&m=8#5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=349&m=8#5

).

In

quote:
Biological sequence analysis Probabilistic models of proteins and nucleic acids
by RDurbin, SEddy, AKrogh and GMtichison from Cambridge Univ Press, the authors set up a formalism for the discipline of comparing density differences in biological sequences by use of thought(s) in computer science on STRING manipulation(s). They consider for example DNA sequences with basechanges and GAPS that are due to what they connote as “insertions” or “deletions” and provide a discussion on how INFORMATION gained by the use of computer science to FAMILIES OF PROTEINS works to further the field,,, which includes prediction of longest time differences in the PHYLOGENY of organisms.

Let me take Snikwads (1-2) to be one protein family and (3-4) to be another (&if Mick, you feel certain that I still must disallow 1.5s here, please don’t worry about saying so in here) with the GAP between the datawarehouse memory storage of the proteins being associated with ANY INFORMABLE relation of protein families- even-if not-currently –being-selectedfor etc.

Now I need only show that my idea of the DENOTATION of the insertions and deletions leads to a more predictable science (if the standard was to say how ordered atomic states and descent with modification are related…)than the analytic formality that Durbin Eddy Krough and Mitcheson etc set up and Mick correctly challenged. We need to see money put to this, so results can get done and a paper presented to PNAS should the computations out-perform those, done from prejudice of a different probability space, wherein; say DEKM could think that the notion of the GAP WAS due to what works for computer scientists. My insight is not first and foremost operational but based on ideas about diversity related to actual man-makeable practices but admitted difficult to keep taking apart.

So my process would REQUIRE instead, the calculation of the difference in the output of the widest ontogenic difference in the PREDITABILITY of the protein “strings” that this bradsnk language speaks outof , see the following BRADNOTES, instead:: but would have to use in the TUBE illustrated the finite difference equation I mentioned here
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=314&m=50#50
or something applied math wise approximate to that below on GalvaniVolta where said BRADNOTES are duplicated:

The need to use panbiogeography (where I first brought this up with Mick) is that l must be sufficiently large(quoted in the ref to the heat conduction finite difference equation

quote:
But if l is sufficiently large for the difference of temperature between two places [l] apart to be considerably more than its uncertainity

) and this is how I achieve that independently of the molecular data itself(and various difficulties perhaps in sensing what I already understand etc) this does not preclude me from addressing specifically how heritability is causally bound with atomic arrangements.
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=127&m=42#35 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=127&m=42#35">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=127&m=42#35
Else my idea won’t work.

BUT THE POINT ABOUT EVC IS NOT about whether I’m a genius, a working scientist, not a naive graduated student, carry up a master piece, but about how it was the I WAS SOCIALLY AND EDUCAtIONALLY prevented from becoming this person I am becoming neverthenonealess. I don’t see how my cultural actions warrant the response I received from professionals and in post after post you have noticed this. Thanks. I empathize with creationists of any religion because of this hostility or persecution that I witnessed and now and again only blip on the screen every now and then .

What is frightening is seeing how the electronic medium is not free of the issues that lead to me to start to use my readings in science in earnest. A jar with a dead frog in it was enough for my lover so a well intentioned post should work just as well as happiness lost.

So to redisplay-
The notes pictured above are about different possible growth effects of different proteins genes might express (specifically I was thinking about MSX and Apoptotic genes but I have PARTICULARIZED this to any data linkable to the “gap” in the discipline of biological sequence analysis. I relate the synthesis of the experimental setup (on polarity in expts that work by cutting off tadpole tails while the young continue to grow and metamorphose to the older Galvani-Volta issue of metal connectivity, specifically in terms of the STRUCTURE the gaps insert/delete nonmutationally or indeed basesubstitute (thus justifiying statements about the relation of descent with modification and atomic strucuture) and I don’t get into the possible combinations of 1-D symmetry where SNIK’s bodily contribution divides what would be THE PATH OF HEAT CONDUCTION not matter whether the calculation on the particles is developed more from thoughts on photon statistics or electron capacities.

SO should my work break out of EVC and become just mainstream it will seem odd then what today is the slow progress of me working hardly alone anymore but in conjunction with the friendly contributors on EVC. I was always wondering if one day I might be at the cultural equivalent of Einstein’s patent office. It seems at least THAT time has arrived.

I have some other notes with said gap detailed possibly as a {#Ofchromosomes} but that is a less determinate relation than that reflected in this post.

The crucial thing here is to facilitate prediction from a family of proteins to other molecular correlations. Should such exist, there is no stopping actual research on the relation of subatomic forces and heritability. My approach if it works will out compete the current methods. That said it is true we need to see working examples but I posted this because I see no a priori reason to discount categorically thoughts that might relate ordered atomic states and heritability. It seems pretty easy to contemplate that existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by berberry, posted 02-21-2005 10:51 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by berberry, posted 02-25-2005 3:26 AM Brad McFall has responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 69 (188350)
02-25-2005 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Brad McFall
02-24-2005 5:43 PM


Brad writes me:

quote:
BUT THE POINT ABOUT EVC IS NOT about whether I’m a genius, a working scientist, not a naive graduated student

I guess not, but I can't help speculating from time to time about you being a genius. Your knowledge of scientists and philosophers - not to mention science and philosophy - goes far beyond mine. I can follow some of what you say about Kant because I became interested in him at college and read parts of his Critique of Pure Reason. (BTW, for anyone who might not know, Kant is often considered to be one of the most important German philosophers of all time. If you aren't familiar with him, check the entry at Wikipedia. His writing, if I recall, was often cryptic in ways similar to Brad's writing). I've read up on him lately to refresh my memory, and I notice that his views seem to heavily influence yours. Am I correct in believing that you see 'intelligent design' as a type of a priori knowledge?

I think it's important not to try to carry Kant's science notions too far in today's debate, because his ideas were formulated at a time when modern science was in its infancy.

quote:
I don’t see how my cultural actions warrant the response I received from professionals and in post after post you have noticed this. Thanks

You're welcome.

quote:
I empathize with creationists of any religion because of this hostility or persecution that I witnessed and now and again only blip on the screen every now and then .

I can understand your empathy for creationists, but I think this points out a cultural difference between us. Where you live, creationists are a minority, no? That's not at all the case in Mississippi. Creationists here are an almost overwhelming majority. So while I can understand your empathy and even your philosophic agreement with them on some of the ideas behind ID, I cannot understand why you feel that ID is science.

quote:
A jar with a dead frog in it was enough for my lover so a well intentioned post should work just as well as happiness lost.

:D You do crack me up sometimes, Brad. That's marvelous!

quote:
I was always wondering if one day I might be at the cultural equivalent of Einstein’s patent office. It seems at least THAT time has arrived.

Another interesting choice of words. I think I see your point.

quote:
The crucial thing here is to facilitate prediction from a family of proteins to other molecular correlations. Should such exist, there is no stopping actual research on the relation of subatomic forces and heritability. My approach if it works will out compete the current methods. That said it is true we need to see working examples but I posted this because I see no a priori reason to discount categorically thoughts that might relate ordered atomic states and heritability. It seems pretty easy to contemplate that existence.

Easy to contemplate maybe, but are you talking about using "thoughts" to justify ID as science? I don't think you can do that until you find those working examples you spoke of.


Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 02-24-2005 5:43 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Brad McFall, posted 02-25-2005 6:57 AM berberry has responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 69 (188351)
02-25-2005 3:33 AM


And by the way, Brad, I remember somewhere upthread you complained about the thumbs-down icon next to the thread listing. You can change that yourself by editing the OP.


Keep America Safe AND Free!

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 69 (188360)
02-25-2005 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Admin
02-24-2005 10:39 AM


quote:
Please see Message 22. While board administration is not infallible, it is the majority opinion of moderators that Brad is difficult to understand but well-intentioned.

I'm a materialist. "Intentions" are undemonstrable, untestable, and thus irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 02-24-2005 10:39 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 02-25-2005 6:17 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3372 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 57 of 69 (188401)
02-25-2005 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by contracycle
02-25-2005 4:15 AM


Dear Contracycle;
I see you got a phD in organic chemistry from Ohio State.
Congratulation. If you really want to think that everything here at EVC needs to be responded to as is occurring to ALLENROYBOY in the Glaciers thread - namely just to say that creationism isnt materialistic - then you WILL miss the difference between me and creationists who regularly post in CRS or the INTERNATIONAL MEETING of CREATIONSITS. I went on local TIMEWARNER TV where I attempted to divide my own thought about simple ways of reading the difference of creation ex nhilio, evolution by forces, philosophical mathamatics and philosophical chemistry AND panbiogeography FROM THE WORDS of Phil Johnson by Quoting from the Supreme Court Decision on LOUSIANA given that the Lurthern Church on CANAL STREET had asked me to write a curriculum on evolution and creation in so far as to RAISE the standards of science in the process BUT I indicated that my ideas WERE a STORY than striaght ICR type creationism. I didnt want to say that because I thought that might make it difficult for ICR types to accept what I was saying but I had to tell the truth. In the process I went on to DETAIL that I agreed with Gish and not Morrowitz on a particular and in the process of that ONE COMMENT within the the whole social thing about evolution and creation I agreeed that looking at any difference in terms of "just an experiment in organic chemistry" was A WAY of characterizing what's up if say Gish was the bulldog or bannana etc but that this WAS NOT the way I looked at a simple way OF READING THE LITERATURE.

I seperated OFF readings of philosophical chemistry as distinct from evolution by force NOT because the difference of naturalism and materialism that Eugenie Scott raises but simply because I KNEW of Stu Kaufmann's view and I had heard Eigen lecture in public and know there is literature especially out of Germany that attempts to describe life much interms of ONLY random motions of molecules. That however is not the relations of math to life that are possible and is NOT evolution as it traditionally taught post Synthesis. Obviously panbiogeography and what Allenroyboy does are different from that again.

But with that as the background. I went onto ICR's discussion board and started to post but was too confusing to thier posters, JUST AS I AM HARD TO UNDERSTAND here. There is absolutely no difference that there are more evos here than there was there online. It is just that I am hard to sense. And so reasonably Jason said they were letting me go because they couldnt sense, understand, reason, be sure of my "intentions". I objected to the "phrasing" but accepted that I know it is DIFFICULT to follow me. I have probably spent more time than most on this issue because I saw it simply as the difference of my grandfather's two marriages ONLY but I have made a very simple division writings in the field and would be happy to send the video to you although I will have to update my technology now to do so. Your point is more about this board and that you think you can just post like many else here. Well Iguess that is up to the admins and they can feel free to say I have got to do too like ICR said, but the difference between straight up creationism and me is that I am trying to show how my faith is not incompatible with standard science by raising both creationism and evolutionism together. I believe this is what was decided by law in the US. EVC is neat because we can tap into world wide differences. That is great. and so philosophically "intentions" make a grounded and likely material differences as ICR rightly suggested to me. "Clarity Connect" is an ISP. It is not a trick.

I was accepted into the chemistry major at Cornell by McMurry an organic chemist but due things more evc like I could not complete that degree and it is from trying to understand why that did nothappen that I continue to notice both naturalistic reasons and materialistic hopes that get in the way of what I consider despite Phil Johnson's difference of "origin of genetic information" and "biochemsitry" the future of well intentioned science, especially recently when bioethics are likely to garner more attention than mutually assured destruction was not ARE.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-25-2005 06:23 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by contracycle, posted 02-25-2005 4:15 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3372 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 58 of 69 (188406)
02-25-2005 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by berberry
02-25-2005 3:26 AM


quote:
I've read up on him lately to refresh my memory, and I notice that his views seem to heavily influence yours. Am I correct in believing that you see 'intelligent design' as a type of a priori knowledge?

Yes indeed. On finding a Russian book about galaxy forms I realized that Kant really was quite a thinker with his view of the solar system before astronomers had telescopes and he reached his view just by thinking in categories of science of his day. He was a great model. He was more than that. He asked the question to the reader if the reader disagreed with him to show him that space IS NOT 3-D. That is still a challenge I have not lived through. It might be possible to respond directly to that"" Kant if Cantor's ordertype were a regular tool in nmaterialism but modern philosophy being so recently contrary to Kant's on the synthetic apriori is seems to be some time before this appeception gets out of strictly German circles if it exists there at all except for what I have tried to say about Faraday-Galvani WITHIN Kant's work but interms of today's biochemistry. Yes I do often slip into a shortand for ID as apriori knowledge but I only do that when I am ready to take on the burden of demonstrating material advances possible in ID that go unrecognized (as far as I know) in modern science. I'll try to explain the issue of "family" of proteins later again more in lines with what Gary and I blipped up recently. I had not tried to relate the consequential a priori nature in the PLANE that would result to some measure and that would be required to apply it to what ever ID might attempt. I still dont have any confirmation that my contention that probablity spaces are not what they might be by either ID or otherwise. It is just a conjecture but I am starting to see how ID, nanoscience, and differences of opinion in physics might be alieviated no matter how the multipolarity of EVCtype things gets educated.

Ilived in New Orleans for quite some time and FELT the difference in the society but this is still all the United States and thus that is how I got to be so confident that if I get kicked off a web sight I just need to pop up on the street and I can do all of this stuff in my flesh than as my screen name. You have read something into my recent post as I can not say ID is science until I do the science. Mick's challenge, R'athor request and Contracycle's chemicals all need to be set up for me to THEN demonstrate further in philosophical differences of the dissemination of Kant that ID can become related to ICr...Look the thinking that I go through is ITSELF too much for how posting goes so I must take the two steps back as well. But you are keeping me alive so to speak . Thanks.

I guess I could answer you-Ill have to give it more time- I had not seen before yesterday how to USE heat conduction in mathematical terms I already understood the nonmathmatical part of. By writing my understading in Fourier's words I could show you something else about ID but I think if you are putting as much attention to Kant as it is begining to appear to me you understand why as well as how I am reading him in EVCspeak. The procees IS probably eventually having rasied both evolution and creation science to show that ID is philosophically moral rather than materialistic except proabablistically but THEN that is accomplished in a different PHILOSOPHICAL atmosphere than is current in the elite schools (but we have here with you but not with most other evcers) but I am fairly certain it is this horizon and not that in Mississippi that is the cause of the law challenges but the students perspective should not be clouded by the 60s mentality of our parents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by berberry, posted 02-25-2005 3:26 AM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by berberry, posted 02-25-2005 1:18 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 69 (188508)
02-25-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Brad McFall
02-25-2005 6:57 AM


Brad writes me:

quote:
You have read something into my recent post as I can not say ID is science until I do the science.

Well I'm glad to hear you say that. But in another thread we were discussing the stickers that some states are mandating on science textbooks promoting ID. You seem to feel that the stickers are appropriate while I don't. Just as Kant was a philosopher, so ID is philosophy until someone can find a scientific basis for it. That's why I say that ID has no place in science classrooms.

quote:
By writing my understading in Fourier's words I could show you something else about ID but I think if you are putting as much attention to Kant as it is begining to appear to me you understand why as well as how I am reading him in EVCspeak.

Well, I think I'm beginning to understand how you see all these scientific and philosophic disciplines as interrelated and perhaps even interdependent. I suppose I could sum up my complaint by saying that, in my view, philosophy can draw on science for its conclusions but science cannot draw on philosophy for anything more than inspiration.

In other words, if we allow ID into science classrooms, aren't we undermining science?


Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Brad McFall, posted 02-25-2005 6:57 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Brad McFall, posted 02-25-2005 1:34 PM berberry has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3372 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 60 of 69 (188513)
02-25-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by berberry
02-25-2005 1:18 PM


I agree with your statement about philosophy. No, I dont think that creationism is to be TAUGHT in highschool simply making it clear that there are errors is enough at that stage. The problem comes if one thinks there are NONE. That is somewhat like how my moms thinks. Even evolutionists notice differences of opinion amongst themselves as scientitsts NO MATTER WHAT THE BEST PHILOSOPHER of the day says. If this error WAS about PROBABILTY NOTIONS themselves AND NOT ABOUT the soft parts of biology then there are SOCIAL consequences to the restriction of the error to the pHd thesis. Even the softer parts are not things to be brought agasint the undergrad's mind. That is my point. So I felt the stickers were necessary because despite my mother's rather loose thought (progressive evolution) she would have to recognize what only seems to become existant above the graduate level actually today. Just because I think that certain ideas in computer science do not apply to biology I should not place myself as the rule of law just as she is free to think of it as she likes assuming she is still for a good eduction etc. She is. But in my case it was her who had a "documentd" nervous breakdown and it is not my place to say whether I had somehing by transference or not but I have worked it out. She has not. Yes the stickers are bad but it is worse to be committed involuntarily if a few stickers or note abouterrors could have prevented it. Since ICR can not say that organizing these errors is more on my side or ID sides I can not choose absolutely and we will have to agree to disagree somewhat but that is fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by berberry, posted 02-25-2005 1:18 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by berberry, posted 02-25-2005 2:10 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019