Ishmael was his first book- he fleshed it out later. I highly recommend reading his works for a way to combine tribalism with distributism to create a high tech tribe.
Far too late for me- and millions like me getting hit with this in mid-career. I graduated high school in 1989.
Also more to the point, very few people are "rich enough" to not want more, the man who wants to make get his raise to $30,000 a year is no less happy than the one who wants $130,000/yr.
This last, I think, is what Americans have lost touch with- though the guy making $30,000/year is a hell of a lot less likely to make it to 75 due to lack of access to health care.
That certainly is the goal. I've presented what I think is the best (even if disappointing) way to approach that goal. If you have a better way, I'll be the first one onboard. Flesh it out for me. How would this work?
Well, to me it basically says that teachers can't use grades to punish students who have contrary viewpoints. We've got to grade them on how well they assess and present evidence, not on what that evidence is. Right now, that's the way I read the Dover ruling- students who believe something other than strict evolution, who present evidence say, that almost every missing link find has turned out to be a hoax (I'm not sure about this most recent one), will fail the class, is not reasonable by any stretch of immagination. That's why I say going with one extreme or the other is a problem- giving government backing to one extreme just does not work. And what do we do when evolution IS eventually proved incorrect in some minor detail, as it most certainly will be due to the unpredictability factor? We now have case law that says you can't teach anything else!
Of course, I had the same problem when my brother had to write his first research paper in the 8th grade- on capitalism and communism- and the instructor gave him the thesis and conclusion: Anybody who did not come up with the conclusion that capitalism was better in all cases, that the free market was superior, would recieve a failing grade. My parents backed him on that- but not everybody's would. THAT is what should be illegal.
The last group to say anything like this, the logical positivists, where shown to be wrong. Their cause was abandoned half a century ago. I hope you fare better. Or if there is any particular philosopher you get these ideas from, please give the name.
I don't have a single philosopher I get ideas from- I come up with my own ideas instead. And if the positivists were shown to be wrong, I'd sure like it if you could show me by whom; what I'm in search of is genetic religion.
(And it makes me wonder just what you imagine scientists do, if this would be something forgotten to them... Seeing their work as the pragmatic survival of the most useful appeals even to the least philosophical of scientists.)
Near as I can tell, that's just the surface. Deeper down is a capitalistic struggle for grant money and recognition of their own ideas; for which hardly anybody is willing to examine contrary evidence let alone "non-scientific" or "subjective" evidence (note, the IDers are equally to blame in this, as are most human beings- what is subjective or objective changes with what you're trying to prove or disprove).
The problem I have with it isn't that they said some part of science might be wrong and that you should think critically about it. The problem is that they didn't go far enough in that claim. Everything might be wrong and you should think critically about everything!
I completely agree with that- thus the proper way out isn't to battle the new sticker on the biology textbook- but to campaign *also* for stickers on the math, history, physics, philosophy, language, and chemistry textbooks.
Seeing how he wrote a detailed and rigorous argument for his every point and every fact used in support, I don't understand how he was particularly dogmatic. It would help if you could point to any particular place in his decision where you think he took something for granted that he shouldn't have.
One can be dogmatic and still write a detailed and rigorous argument. In fact, I'd have to say he's HAVE to be dogmatic to write a detailed and rigorous arguent- because the opposite would be very easy indeed and does not require a detailed and rigorous argument.
The judge ruled on the question because: both sides asked him to! Further, both his duty to accept the task and his ruling are consistent with long lines of precedent, with no counter-precedent. We don't want him to be an activist judge, do we?
A non-activist judge would IMMEDIATELY recognize that the government, by the Constitution, has NO business saying what is and isn't science, religion, or any other philosophy. By accepting the idea that he should give a ruling from the two most biased groups, he puts the government on the fringes of society rather than the center.
You aren't being limited by these decisions. The government and the standards it can enforce are being limited. And one of the principles inherent in the first amendment is that the government is nobody's megaphone when it comes to religion. It does what it can be be impartial on the issue.
This judge didn't- he utterly failed in that duty. And because of it, millions of schoolchildren ARE limited in what they can say in the classroom, are forced into a single dogmatic way of thinking instead of retaining freedom.
But, yes, one unavoidable fact is that the government does things, and that means it must steps on toes. That's why there are standards like the Lemon test, which try to find what the most impartial decision could be. Of course toes get stepped on--you can't avoid it in any decision--but these are principled ways to come to the "least bad" decision.
And one prinicpled way would be for Judges to actually follow the Constitution as written: Congress (the lawmaking body) may not make any law establishing OR denying the free expression of any idea at all. What's wrong with that?
The least bad decision has been, without exception, t
This claim of yours is extremely controversial. I challenge you to support it.
My favorite two writers tackling this are Thomas Aquainas (The Sum Of Theology) and Isaac Newton (Ethics), both of whom were somewhat before Bacon IIRC.
This makes no sense, and just saying it doesn't make it so. A method of empirical investigation applies to... empirical questions. If you don't have an empirical question, you can't use it. That's not a problem; it's just the nature of things. Why you would expect otherwise is a mystery to me.
All questions are ultimately empirical; all answers ultimately testible. They either work or they don't. Those that don't have a tendency to be forgotten by the next generation; those that do are passed down. Kind of a survival of the fittest idea, which brings us right back to evolution. All religions follow this method- that's why the Gnostic Christian sects died out, for instance (because insisting that the physical body was a mistake of an evil God didn't have much application to 1st and 2nd century living). Science would do well to remember those errors- and rectify them.
If you were referring to some group wanting science classes to "admit to the unpredictable nature of science", then you'd have a point. But it looks like you're referring to intelligent design.
Among others, yes. One thing the Intelligent Design people have proposed is a disclaimer on science textbooks stating the unpredictability of science. I for one would have no problem with such a disclaimer- I think the IDers are kind of shooting themselves in the foot with that one- yet for some inexplicable reason, lots of so-called "scientists" seem to have a huge problem with such a disclaimer (never mind the fact that I think EVERY science textbook should have just such a disclaimer on the front inside cover- unlike the IDers who seem to focus on biology textbooks. Especially the Chemistry ones that still teach Bohr's model when we know it's incorrect, or the physics textbook I found last year in a young friend's homework that still refered to sub-etha theory of wave propagation).
The intelligent design proposals have had nothing to do with revealing the limits of science, and opposition to them have had nothing to do with defending some "perfect and unchanging" dogmatic science. The science defenders have two questions: (1) is it science (2) has it been refuted.
Actually, there is one that had some merit: labeling evolution a possibly incorrect theory. I don't know why ANYBODY would have a problem with that- unless they were trying to defend "perfect and unchanging" dogmatic science.
I suggest you read the Judge's opinion. He writes clearly, convincingly, and thoroughly. I couldn't explain things better. If that doesn't convince you, there isn't any more that I could do.
As far as I'm concerned, that judge was just as religious as anybody else in his decision; and failed to see his own hypocracy as much as anybody else. The question should never have come before a judge at all- and when it did, he should have simply refused to hear the case under the First Amendment. Either we have a separation of religion and state in this country- in which case any individual can say anything they damned well please on subjects of religion including science in ANY situation- or we don't. If we don't, we might as well throw out the Constitution and stop pretending that we have freedom of expression.
Equally so- if we're not teaching dogmatic science, then we can make room in the classroom for other debates- even disproven ones- because they give the opportunity for the instructor to actually present the evidence. I see NO reason whatsoever to avoid teaching.
You haven't been able to support this assertion. So far, your ideas have been confused, conflated, and stretched. I would appreciate if you demonstrated it.
The fact that you argue that ethics are not empirical is proof enough that you're trying to hide something. Either a certain action works to enhance human relationships or it doesn't. It either helps mankind or it hurts us all. There's no shade of grey.
In my home state (Delaware) there is a decent University that is fairly inexpensive (many other states are like this too). It is also not too un-reasonable for in-state students to have their education entirly funded by scholorships. If you do well in undergraduate they will let you into the graduate program and pay you enough to live a (very) meager life. All of the text books are ut in a place in the library so you can use them for free (I only took 2 classes, so this may not be entirly true). I know many other states are like this too, so I don't really buy the education is too expensive in America argument.
A fairly inexpensive university in America would be the average state university, which charges around $40,000 for a 4 year engineering degree. India Institute of Technology chagres around $4000 for the same degree. Now I'll admit that we have a good deal of financial aid here- but they do as well, so that part is just about even. America is nothing special in that regard.
P.S. I didn't go to callege, except for a few classes I never finished (spelling/grammer attest to that), and live a fairly decent life, there are plenty of non-outsourcable jobs that require no education, only good work ethic and they pay well enough that a couple can make a decent life doing them (retail management is a quick example).
The average non-college couple will make more than a million dollars less than a couple with college degrees over the course of a 40 year career. Of course, those numbers were BO (Before Outsourcing)- these days I have my doubts.
When I first came into the United States, I filled a position that the employer had open for over six months and no Americans wanted to fill it.
We've got a process in place for that under capitalism- Supply and Demand pricing. What your employer SHOULD have done was increase the salary they were willing to pay. But instead they went the indentured seritude route.
While I would like to get a Green Card and become a permanent resident, there is no way in hell that I will ever become a U.S. citizen. As a (completely legal!) foreigner, I am treated like crap by your government and (some of your) people, and I have no faith that things will get any better. The current rules in place basically tie me to my current employer until I either abandon my Green Card and leave, or through some miracle the government goes through the backlog (which will take eight years to do, and there's no signs of it getting any better).
The way I see it is this: We're ALL- legal citizens included- being treated like crap by the current system. The inefficiency (if they really wanted to, there is absolutely NO reason why a green card from a first world country like Canada couldn't be processes entirely electronically for the VAST majority of people, in less than 15 minutes) is a large part of it. Not allowing people to apply for that green card from other countries over the web is another- no need for that either in today's high-information first world. We seem to be stuck with an immigration system from the 17th century- but unlike you I do see it beginning to change, under pressure from citizens on both sides of the debate. Despite being personally against it (I don't think America needs any "resident aliens" when there are SO many wanting to immigrate here to become citizens, and while we still have citizens here undemployed) I see new legislation with expanded access to green cards being passed by August at the latest, as this is becoming a situation that will directly affect the November ballot box and 66% of the jobs in Congress.
If you want to get rid of indentured servitude, then you don't need to get rid of guest workers and H1 programs, you need to improve your internal processes so that we can move from employer to employer more easily and not have to be in paranoid fear of the men in black walking us to the border because we made a typo on a piece of paperwork.
Uh, perhaps you don't understand the concept of a guest worker program and the H* visas- they're all designed to do EXACTLY that, that's why the entire class needs to be abolished. I'm in fact surprised that as a Canadian you're here on an H-1b visa to begin with; I'd think a TN visa (which anybody with a Bachelor's degree can get in Canada, Mexico, and the US to move to any of the three under NAFTA) would be the program you'd want instead. It's slightly more risky from a financial standpoint (because you have to be an independant contractor and pay business taxes) but it's much less risky from a deportation upon firing standpoint (because you're an independant businessman instead, can work for anybody on a 1099 basis, and can't be deported at all under NAFTA even if you're suspected of a serious crime). The only thing I can think of is that your employer wants the power over your life, and you wouldn't be able to get the job without trading away that power.
Since the very beginings during the renaisance, the entire purpose of science has been to discover the Mind of God, and thus a single ethical system, by examining natural law. The fact that MODERN scientists have a tendency to shirk that responsibility by claiming that ethics has nothing to do with science has been to the detriment of both science and humanity- and forgetting history leads directly to the argument that science is somehow opposed to religion, when in reality science IS a religion, just a rather non-exclusive one (there are OTHER non-exclusive religious and sects within religions out there; Sunnis, Buddhists, Shintos, Jesuits just to name a few).
The objectivity of our observations have no relation whatsoever to the objectivity of our ethical judgments.
That's more cop-out than reality- if the scientific method has any validity at all, then it must have universal validity. Otherwise, it's just another lie taught to schoolchildren, no different than any other.
If you find such a classroom, I guarantee you that it would be a scandal. I would oppose it. Scientists would oppose it. Good teachers would oppose it.
And yet, none of these groups oppose it- whenever somebody proposes a law that requires science classrooms to admit to the unpredictable nature of science, they band together to vote the school board out instead. It is a scandal- but since these types of classrooms are usually opposed to fundamentalist forces on the other side of the debate, they are tolerated and even encouraged.
It's not just wrong--it's against science itself to teach that belief, even according to scientific realists. (Actually, especially according to scientific realists.)
I've yet to meet a scientific realist in this debate- only varieties of atheists who are unable to admit to the fact that theirs is just yet another religion.
All 9 of those jobs will be filled by H-1bs, who can afford to work for $13,000/year less because they paid between a quarter and a tenth what it costs for an American to get a degree.
Until our immigration program is fixed and there are NO more guest workers, the flip side of outsourcing will be indentured servitude, and still no Americans will get jobs. The only way to fix this is to get rid of the H* programs altogether and only let people work in this country who intend to stay and become citizens.
This is a line that most already considered drawn.
Most scientists yes. Most PEOPLE, no. Why do you think the Young Earth Creationists argue so hard for their side against all logic and reason? It's because they believe in a certain OBJECTIVE reality- a final truth- and cannot abide anything other than that truth. The same phenomenon exists on the other side with the hard core atheists.
On the contrary, science is only too unpredictable if any unpredictability is too much.
Under the concept that adults should not lie to the children they are teaching, that is EXACTLY the social situation we've set up in our schools- any unpredictability is too much. When teachers start handing out good grades for the thinking process instead of getting the "right" answer, then we will have an education system that can handle the unpredictability. Until that happens, we will be doomed to this strange situation of saying that we separate religion and state on the one hand, and turning science into a religion (and forcing it onto kids in school) on the other.
No, David Stove's "Wost Argument" and your own (as presented) have nothing to do with morality. I really don't know how you got that idea.
They both have a good deal to do with morality; and here's why. If reality itself is subjective, then each one of us is living in our own little moral world; the decisions we make are always right regardless of how those decisions affect others becuse it's simply the best we can do with the information at hand at the time. In other words, we're already living in a utopia of our own making, the best of all possible worlds. If, on the other hand, there is an objective reality, an objective right and wrong, then there is one correct path (possibly unknowable at present time due to sects and fractional in-fighting) that is the best action for humanity as a whole, not just ourselves. This is the argument of science and organized religion- and is also the reason why I call science "just another religion".
It's ALL about the ethics and morality; almost none of it is about the actual science or theology involved. Are we ethically allowed to fudge the unpredicability and effectively lie to schoolchildren, as if the purpose of science classrooms to instill SCIENCE as a universal BELIEF, immutable and written in stone? Or should we admit that we don't know even if the path exists yet, but here's science's current thinking on the topic, and yeah, we have this other class called comparative religions and philosophy that shows us a few other ethical paths?
Well, for that matter, MACRO evolution has no practical importance to a wheat farmer in Kansas- no cross breeding imaginable will allow him to grow cows from seed planted in the ground directly, he must go through a grain first.
But yes, all you're talking about is practicality, we don't need to know whether we're in the Matrix or not. But if we're talking about the *very basic* teching concept that adults should not knowingly lie to those they are teaching, it matters a good deal whether or not we label facts as being empirical (and thus, potentially changeable by future experiment) or objective (and set in stone for all forseeable human life until the sun goes dark).
It's most certainly a sociological problem, not a scientific one or even a theological one. If we're going to have a society that mixes different worldviews, it's extremely important to label the worldview our opinion comes from.
In this case, I'm condescending to the technology itself- which is woefully inadequate for such a discussion. A good case in point is that you THOUGHT I was condescending to the GP post instead of making a comment on text-based communications without benefit of body language.
My real point? People are different and you have to tailor your argument to your audience. Scientists forget that, and that's why we have these stupid arguments about science and theology.
From YOUR point of view, yes, but from THEIR point of view- well, not all religious people are fundamentalists and even think the book is authoritarian (Catholics, for instance, simply don't). And that's what my point is- getting you to see life from another point of view.
I DON'T think people are simply too stupid to understand evolution. I have observed how any understanding of it is, however, supressed, using taboo, identity, and logocentrism.
Just as evolution has also been forced on people using taboo (can't have religion in a science classroom!), identity (you're a damned idiot if you belive anything other than what we're teaching you, and we'll brand you with an F to prove it) and logocentrism (what's in the textbook is true and you'd better never question it if you don't want to end up in court). Sorry- science does this just as effectively as fundamentalist christianity does- in other words not very well.
Oh, give me a break. Like a kid raised without a father is more tragic than stoning a rape victim who won't marry her rapist.
The funny thing is that you don't actually seem to understand the connection between the two- or for that matter the true purpose behind fatherhood.
The people jumping on the neo-Xian theocracy bandwagon aren't reading their own book very well, they're listening to preachers and upstanding leading-citizens, whose identities need authoritarian beliefs to work.
Well, for that matter, so are most scientists. Instead of doing the work themselves, they refer to the work of others, whose identities need the authority of a Piled-Higher-and-Deeper degree to work.
I'm all for a tribal ethos. We'll just have to break up into groups of a thousand or so, and take care of a nice little patch of nature. The city dwellers will put an end to that pronto, though.
Yep, and that's the problem. Allowing control over other people's lives- it's the same central problem whether you're talking economics or evolution/Young Earth Creationism (the rest of the ID crowd knows that there's no predictive difference between a God setting down rules the universe has to follow and random mutation- but suspects that if we knew the rules the randomness would disappear).
Hear hear. It's a pretty big electromagnetic spectrum, and we only see a wee slice. Just sayin.
And that, in short, is the end result of it all.
Oh, now, you've confused this with some other thread. What reality? it's a contextual thing, moves when you try to pin it down, so obviously we're not very good at observing it. Still, I put my foot down on concrete and it stops, so there's 'good enough,' and then there's some unholy grail of the absolute called Fact. Doesn't matter if that concrete is jiggly mostly empty atoms, or aether, designed by Joe who was designed by Yahweh when He gave Adam balls. It's all fiction, stories to relate. But I can walk, today. And make better concrete by understanding the jiggly atom story, so it's good enough for sidewalks.
Just never forget that it's just a story- just a bigger model describing exactly the same thing.
Deities, on the other hand, well, puny human, what do any of you really know about them? Does the ant understand the finger that flicks it?
It looks to me like what you are actually saying and what you are trying to say are in contradiction. You're either conflating two definitions of the word "fact" or (less likely) your wording confuses epistemology and ontology.
Exactly. Basically what I'm doing is drawing a bright line between objective reality and experimental reality- and saying that the two are NOT and can never be equal.
You agreed with the statement, "Facts are things that are true, despite whether they are believed or not." This is an ontological claim--it's about what actually exists "out there" in the world beyond our experience. By agreeing, you are saying that an objective reality exists, regardless of our ability or inability to know it. This much is compatible with common sense.
Common sense is rather uncommon these days- but neither has any bearing on reality.
Yet you then said, "And since human beings are only capable of opinion-not actually knowing reality, but only a model of reality we carry around in our heads-facts cannot exist." This is an epistemological claim--it's about what is or can be known--that you've twisted into a malformed ontological claim. You are basically saying that somehow, because of the limits of our knowledge, what exists "out there" in the real world doesn't actually exist at all!
I'd modify that to "doesn't exist for us", since we can't actually know what exists beyond our own skulls with accuracy. We can make some mighty good guesses- but those guesses are incorrect.
I think the responses have been largely in agreement with #1 and #2, but taking great exception to #3. (If not, that at least reflects how I feel about it.) I don't think we ever know the truth about anything as certainly as we know 2+2=4, but I think there are principled ways to go about finding it; and one can certainly say that one given opinion is better than another, or even that one is the best at any given time. I don't see how one can deny--even granting our imperfect access to the world--that some claims are more supported than others, with some claims being so strongly supported that we should give them special consideration. I'd call them facts, even with the understanding that they might change.
My point is, that unless you are *very* explicit about the understanding that facts can change, the implicit assumption in English is that facts are immutable, written in stone- and that's where the argument comes in.
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
I realize this isn't you- just a quote from Stephen Gould- but I say that makes science so unpredictable as to be almost worthless for actual learn-once-and-it's-right-forever knowledge- the kind of knowledge that religion offers. And that's why evolution loses every time in the theological debate and for those people who see philosophy rather than science as defining truth.
Further, to change directions a little, it looks to me like you might have used a form of what philosopher David Stove awarded the title: "Worst Argument in the World." (No insult intended. He chose this argument because it's so common--he's even caught himself making it.)
There's another name for it- moral relativism. Pope Benedict XVI got himself elected Pope by preaching against it. But the converse is also the sin of arrogance- believing yourself to be somehow better than every other human being on the planet by virtue of what, objectively, are merely opinions.
Well, if you want to put it that way, then expecting the science world to accept biblical creationism (or it's ID equivalent) would be like trying to get a christian to accept buddhism as part of his faith.
Absolutely true- so why bother? The answer is found in the main theological mistake of American Evangelical Christianity, and curiously enough, is also the main difference between what they think evolution is and what it really is.
However, I'd argue that science doesn't pretend to answer questions of faith. It doesn't (and really can't) answer the question of if there is a god. Einstein presumed the existence of God (thus his infamous "God does not play dice!" quote about quantum mechanics). Other scientists have been devout athiests, but neither religion, nor the lack of it has seriously hindered most scientists (though it may color how they investigate some issues).
It's actually unavoidable in the data they choose to investigate- religion colors what our definition of "objective reality" is. But that's kind of beside the point- the real issue for American Atheist Scientists and American Evangelical Christians is far more narrow than that.
I think that forcing a specific religion's views to be accepted as 'science' does a disservice to both -- even if one comes from your view that science is simply a different religion (which, I think, most scientists -- especially religious ones would be quick to disagree with you on).
Most human beings are uncomfortable with their worldview being myth and not having control over other people's myths- and that is EXACTLY what has gone wrong with science education in this country and with how both the American Atheists and the American Evangelicals have handled this debate. It's really about control, or the lack thereof. Both sides have their own worldview- equally valid, neither actually what the science is really pointing to (we're just begining to discover that the way DNA and RNA combine and recombine is EXTREMELY deterministic- not chaotic- and thus random mutation is about as objective as the concept of God creating the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago). But what doesn't matter to them is whether or not their worldview is correct- neither one actually is and it doesn't bother them in the slightest- but rather whether or not they can convince others to give money and bend laws to their way of life. And so you get atheistic instructors in Biology insisting that random mutation exists (and by inferance, God doesn't) and you get random preachers filing lawsuits and electing school boards to teach ID as Young Earth Creationism (which is equally wrong).
100% for understanding the joke behind the troll, 0% for getting the point. The point wasn't that IQ actually means anything other than a completely subjective measure of intelligence. The point was that DIFFERENT people start with DIFFERENT types of intelligions and assumptions about the universe- and should be respected for those points of view even when the conclusions drawn from those points of view are radically different than ours.
So you think that if you can't know something, then it can't exist? That nothing exists outside of your mind? That sounds like delusions of grandure to me. If that's not true, that stuff does exist outside of the mind, then stuff exists outside of where subjectivity happens; this is where facts lie*.
I agree that philosophically, facts might exist somewhere- but no human being has the capability of finding them. Every objective fact would have to be found with an objective test procedure- and no objective test procedures can exist for human beings. All human test procedures require a subjective obvserver at some point.
(*lie as in stand/sit, not telling an untruth)
Good- you're learning the main hole of electronic communication.
"Empirical" means "testable" or "known from testing", more or less. It's not really the opposite of a priori, though it's close. It seems you've invented your own defintion of "fact", if you deny that an "empirical fact" is possible. Feel free to invent your own definition for any symbol, but it doesn't really help the discussion much.
The problem is that ANY testing- no matter what method you choose- depends on the interpretation of the observer, which is *always* subjective. Testing can never be objective- thus while I agree with you that Empirical Evidence can lead to "justified belief", it can never actually lead to "objective fact". Do you understand the difference? I agree it's a nitpicky bit of line- but it's the difference between having a justified belief and being arrogant about that justified belief.
The definition of "know" has been fought over so long that there's a name for the field (epistemology). You'd probably enjoy reading some books on the subject. Your ideas are oft-repeated in graduate epistemology dicsussions, but ultimately "justified true belief" works pretty darn well as a definition of "knowledge" - it has some problems, but competing definitions have more. Most people were first introduced to epistemology by The Matrix, but that was a very old idea indeed.
I knew about it long before then- I'm a software engineer, and the very difference in definition between software and hardware forces one into epistemology. I agree justified belief works fine for most people in most cases- I'm just saying it's an outright lie to call justified belief "objective fact".
Personally, I go with the defintion of "true" used generally in the sciences. True:= "usefully predictive". It really makes no difference whether I'm in the matrix or not - "facts" which allow me to make useful predictions about the world I interact with are something I can know.
It's good enough for you, and it's good enough for science- but it's NOT good enough for the culture war if science wants to win. Science has to be *more* truthfull than religion, not just another religion with another defintion of truth that is as good as any other. Most magician's tricks are usefully predictive- as are most religious rituals for what they're intended for.
The universe exists even without us perceving it. Blind men don't remove the existence of colors, deaf men don't remove the existence of music, ignorance does not remove the existence of fact.
All of the above does so for the individual involved- we each live in our own world of perception, with little or no overlap. Being arrogant about your own perceptive worldview, I can easily imagine you falling to a mental illness I call the Addams Family Syndrome- believing yourself to be sane and the rest of the world to be insane.
You're being dishonest again, or simply showing your lack of knowledge.
No, you're just not being entirely honest with yourself about what we know and can prove vs. what we don't know and simply assume.
Nobody but the creationist talk about random mutaion in this way.
Well, them and high school biology teachers and evolution professors in college and atheists- I've heard all three of the other groups refer to "random mutation" as if it explains something- when in reality it explains just about as much as "God done it"- an admission that you don't want to actually examine the full complexity of the forces involved.
Mutations are not random. The nucleotides in DNA combine in specific ways that are anything but random.
Agreed- completely. But by *NOT* telling that to begining students in the field and avoiding the topic of how DNA combines, evolution becomes nothing more than yet another religion.
How they combine is well understood, and how those combinations affect the phenotype of the organism is a vast area of study that we are only beginning to make headway into.
Yes- but that's no need to avoid the topic by claiming "random mutation" for the input into evolution when in reality we're still continuing the original form of Science- the Search for the Mind Of God by examining His Creation. If you describe it like that- you steal the thunder right out from under the creationists and we can continue without the argument.
But it is a strawman to proclaim that random mutation creates order. Biologists don't make this claim.
Actual research biologists don't. But MILLIONS of teachers at the high school level and college level DO- and so do athiests who have their own religious squabble that they want to subvert the science to support.
Chaos isn't neccessary to teach evolution- and in fact is a detriment- but without Chaos, evolution and ID are one and the same (completely stealing away ID arguments from the Young Earth Creationist crowd and marginalizing them still further- but hey, shouldn't that be the joint cause between Theistic and Atheistic Evolutionists anyway?)
I'm a little confused as to why you made this statement. My understanding is that you don't believe in any sort of objective truth. Then we can't really talk about life and the universe having complexity, except from the stories we tell about it. The ID story (or perhaps its tellers) happens to cause a reaction in some people that causes them to trust the person they hear it from more than the biology story. How is this sad or not sad? An analogy: I understand where Luke's powers come from in Star Wars (the mitochlorians *SHUDDER*.) I don't understand where Neo's powers come from because its not part of the story. It's not sad though.
It's sad to me because objective truth *should* exist and *should* be proveable to anybody who happens to look. It doesn't- and due to that our world deteriorates into waring tribes and factions. It's the same reason I believe in Daniel Quinn's governmental theories but don't want to believe in those theories because they describe a mistake so collosal that everything we believe, everything we hold true, is wrong.
Not at all- I'm going to claim that facts don't exist and EVERYTHING that we think we know is subjective- including the idea that we think or know. We can have justified belief- see below in an alternate thread- but never have perfect knowledge.
Well that depends on your definition of "know", right? Most would accept "justified true belief" as a definition of "knowledge".
I for one do not- and will not. That's a stupid corruption of knowledge- a way to get around having to actually prove anything.
Whether empirical facts are knowable is a matter of one's threshold for "justified", but "justified" != "proven".
Exactly my point. A fact cannot be an objective fact if it cannot be proven. It can be an empirical fact- but by definition, empirical suggests some level of subjectiveness.
Here's the shocker: know that I'm looking at my computer monitor, as long as that's true. Whether my sense data comes from a computer monitor in the "real world" as normally construed, or I'm in the matrix, it doesn't matter. What I call a "computer monitor" is what I've looked at each time in the past - my belief is justified. Now, if I'm halucinating, then my belief is false and I therefore don't have knowledge, but my belief is still justified.
And thus justification is no judgement of truth- or facts. It's just justified subjective belief- nothing more.
agree it is sad that people shy away from learning difficult topics. But ID explains nothing. The universe is what it is, whether you can wrap your church-going brain around it or not. Pretending it is something other than it is - a hard to understand phenomena - is not science, and is not wise. It is foolishness. It is dishonest.
And yet, that's exactly what biology does when it refers to random mutation- pretends that order comes out of a hard to understand phenomena. ID and Evolution have this in common. And I completely agree- it is not science, it is not wise, it is foolishness, it is dishonest.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is Quinn? Is that that Ishmael stuff?
Ishmael was his first book- he fleshed it out later. I highly recommend reading his works for a way to combine tribalism with distributism to create a high tech tribe.
Free is free, do your work in High School.
Far too late for me- and millions like me getting hit with this in mid-career. I graduated high school in 1989.
Also more to the point, very few people are "rich enough" to not want more, the man who wants to make get his raise to $30,000 a year is no less happy than the one who wants $130,000/yr.
This last, I think, is what Americans have lost touch with- though the guy making $30,000/year is a hell of a lot less likely to make it to 75 due to lack of access to health care.
That certainly is the goal. I've presented what I think is the best (even if disappointing) way to approach that goal. If you have a better way, I'll be the first one onboard. Flesh it out for me. How would this work?
Well, to me it basically says that teachers can't use grades to punish students who have contrary viewpoints. We've got to grade them on how well they assess and present evidence, not on what that evidence is. Right now, that's the way I read the Dover ruling- students who believe something other than strict evolution, who present evidence say, that almost every missing link find has turned out to be a hoax (I'm not sure about this most recent one), will fail the class, is not reasonable by any stretch of immagination. That's why I say going with one extreme or the other is a problem- giving government backing to one extreme just does not work. And what do we do when evolution IS eventually proved incorrect in some minor detail, as it most certainly will be due to the unpredictability factor? We now have case law that says you can't teach anything else!
Of course, I had the same problem when my brother had to write his first research paper in the 8th grade- on capitalism and communism- and the instructor gave him the thesis and conclusion: Anybody who did not come up with the conclusion that capitalism was better in all cases, that the free market was superior, would recieve a failing grade. My parents backed him on that- but not everybody's would. THAT is what should be illegal.
The last group to say anything like this, the logical positivists, where shown to be wrong. Their cause was abandoned half a century ago. I hope you fare better. Or if there is any particular philosopher you get these ideas from, please give the name.
I don't have a single philosopher I get ideas from- I come up with my own ideas instead. And if the positivists were shown to be wrong, I'd sure like it if you could show me by whom; what I'm in search of is genetic religion.
(And it makes me wonder just what you imagine scientists do, if this would be something forgotten to them... Seeing their work as the pragmatic survival of the most useful appeals even to the least philosophical of scientists.)
Near as I can tell, that's just the surface. Deeper down is a capitalistic struggle for grant money and recognition of their own ideas; for which hardly anybody is willing to examine contrary evidence let alone "non-scientific" or "subjective" evidence (note, the IDers are equally to blame in this, as are most human beings- what is subjective or objective changes with what you're trying to prove or disprove).
The problem I have with it isn't that they said some part of science might be wrong and that you should think critically about it. The problem is that they didn't go far enough in that claim. Everything might be wrong and you should think critically about everything!
I completely agree with that- thus the proper way out isn't to battle the new sticker on the biology textbook- but to campaign *also* for stickers on the math, history, physics, philosophy, language, and chemistry textbooks.
Seeing how he wrote a detailed and rigorous argument for his every point and every fact used in support, I don't understand how he was particularly dogmatic. It would help if you could point to any particular place in his decision where you think he took something for granted that he shouldn't have.
One can be dogmatic and still write a detailed and rigorous argument. In fact, I'd have to say he's HAVE to be dogmatic to write a detailed and rigorous arguent- because the opposite would be very easy indeed and does not require a detailed and rigorous argument.
The judge ruled on the question because: both sides asked him to! Further, both his duty to accept the task and his ruling are consistent with long lines of precedent, with no counter-precedent. We don't want him to be an activist judge, do we?
A non-activist judge would IMMEDIATELY recognize that the government, by the Constitution, has NO business saying what is and isn't science, religion, or any other philosophy. By accepting the idea that he should give a ruling from the two most biased groups, he puts the government on the fringes of society rather than the center.
You aren't being limited by these decisions. The government and the standards it can enforce are being limited. And one of the principles inherent in the first amendment is that the government is nobody's megaphone when it comes to religion. It does what it can be be impartial on the issue.
This judge didn't- he utterly failed in that duty. And because of it, millions of schoolchildren ARE limited in what they can say in the classroom, are forced into a single dogmatic way of thinking instead of retaining freedom.
But, yes, one unavoidable fact is that the government does things, and that means it must steps on toes. That's why there are standards like the Lemon test, which try to find what the most impartial decision could be. Of course toes get stepped on--you can't avoid it in any decision--but these are principled ways to come to the "least bad" decision.
And one prinicpled way would be for Judges to actually follow the Constitution as written: Congress (the lawmaking body) may not make any law establishing OR denying the free expression of any idea at all. What's wrong with that?
The least bad decision has been, without exception, t
This claim of yours is extremely controversial. I challenge you to support it.
My favorite two writers tackling this are Thomas Aquainas (The Sum Of Theology) and Isaac Newton (Ethics), both of whom were somewhat before Bacon IIRC.
This makes no sense, and just saying it doesn't make it so. A method of empirical investigation applies to... empirical questions. If you don't have an empirical question, you can't use it. That's not a problem; it's just the nature of things. Why you would expect otherwise is a mystery to me.
All questions are ultimately empirical; all answers ultimately testible. They either work or they don't. Those that don't have a tendency to be forgotten by the next generation; those that do are passed down. Kind of a survival of the fittest idea, which brings us right back to evolution. All religions follow this method- that's why the Gnostic Christian sects died out, for instance (because insisting that the physical body was a mistake of an evil God didn't have much application to 1st and 2nd century living). Science would do well to remember those errors- and rectify them.
If you were referring to some group wanting science classes to "admit to the unpredictable nature of science", then you'd have a point. But it looks like you're referring to intelligent design.
Among others, yes. One thing the Intelligent Design people have proposed is a disclaimer on science textbooks stating the unpredictability of science. I for one would have no problem with such a disclaimer- I think the IDers are kind of shooting themselves in the foot with that one- yet for some inexplicable reason, lots of so-called "scientists" seem to have a huge problem with such a disclaimer (never mind the fact that I think EVERY science textbook should have just such a disclaimer on the front inside cover- unlike the IDers who seem to focus on biology textbooks. Especially the Chemistry ones that still teach Bohr's model when we know it's incorrect, or the physics textbook I found last year in a young friend's homework that still refered to sub-etha theory of wave propagation).
The intelligent design proposals have had nothing to do with revealing the limits of science, and opposition to them have had nothing to do with defending some "perfect and unchanging" dogmatic science. The science defenders have two questions: (1) is it science (2) has it been refuted.
Actually, there is one that had some merit: labeling evolution a possibly incorrect theory. I don't know why ANYBODY would have a problem with that- unless they were trying to defend "perfect and unchanging" dogmatic science.
I suggest you read the Judge's opinion. He writes clearly, convincingly, and thoroughly. I couldn't explain things better. If that doesn't convince you, there isn't any more that I could do.
As far as I'm concerned, that judge was just as religious as anybody else in his decision; and failed to see his own hypocracy as much as anybody else. The question should never have come before a judge at all- and when it did, he should have simply refused to hear the case under the First Amendment. Either we have a separation of religion and state in this country- in which case any individual can say anything they damned well please on subjects of religion including science in ANY situation- or we don't. If we don't, we might as well throw out the Constitution and stop pretending that we have freedom of expression.
Equally so- if we're not teaching dogmatic science, then we can make room in the classroom for other debates- even disproven ones- because they give the opportunity for the instructor to actually present the evidence. I see NO reason whatsoever to avoid teaching.
You haven't been able to support this assertion. So far, your ideas have been confused, conflated, and stretched. I would appreciate if you demonstrated it.
The fact that you argue that ethics are not empirical is proof enough that you're trying to hide something. Either a certain action works to enhance human relationships or it doesn't. It either helps mankind or it hurts us all. There's no shade of grey.
In my home state (Delaware) there is a decent University that is fairly inexpensive (many other states are like this too). It is also not too un-reasonable for in-state students to have their education entirly funded by scholorships. If you do well in undergraduate they will let you into the graduate program and pay you enough to live a (very) meager life. All of the text books are ut in a place in the library so you can use them for free (I only took 2 classes, so this may not be entirly true). I know many other states are like this too, so I don't really buy the education is too expensive in America argument.
A fairly inexpensive university in America would be the average state university, which charges around $40,000 for a 4 year engineering degree. India Institute of Technology chagres around $4000 for the same degree. Now I'll admit that we have a good deal of financial aid here- but they do as well, so that part is just about even. America is nothing special in that regard.
P.S. I didn't go to callege, except for a few classes I never finished (spelling/grammer attest to that), and live a fairly decent life, there are plenty of non-outsourcable jobs that require no education, only good work ethic and they pay well enough that a couple can make a decent life doing them (retail management is a quick example).
The average non-college couple will make more than a million dollars less than a couple with college degrees over the course of a 40 year career. Of course, those numbers were BO (Before Outsourcing)- these days I have my doubts.
When I first came into the United States, I filled a position that the employer had open for over six months and no Americans wanted to fill it.
We've got a process in place for that under capitalism- Supply and Demand pricing. What your employer SHOULD have done was increase the salary they were willing to pay. But instead they went the indentured seritude route.
While I would like to get a Green Card and become a permanent resident, there is no way in hell that I will ever become a U.S. citizen. As a (completely legal!) foreigner, I am treated like crap by your government and (some of your) people, and I have no faith that things will get any better. The current rules in place basically tie me to my current employer until I either abandon my Green Card and leave, or through some miracle the government goes through the backlog (which will take eight years to do, and there's no signs of it getting any better).
The way I see it is this: We're ALL- legal citizens included- being treated like crap by the current system. The inefficiency (if they really wanted to, there is absolutely NO reason why a green card from a first world country like Canada couldn't be processes entirely electronically for the VAST majority of people, in less than 15 minutes) is a large part of it. Not allowing people to apply for that green card from other countries over the web is another- no need for that either in today's high-information first world. We seem to be stuck with an immigration system from the 17th century- but unlike you I do see it beginning to change, under pressure from citizens on both sides of the debate. Despite being personally against it (I don't think America needs any "resident aliens" when there are SO many wanting to immigrate here to become citizens, and while we still have citizens here undemployed) I see new legislation with expanded access to green cards being passed by August at the latest, as this is becoming a situation that will directly affect the November ballot box and 66% of the jobs in Congress.
If you want to get rid of indentured servitude, then you don't need to get rid of guest workers and H1 programs, you need to improve your internal processes so that we can move from employer to employer more easily and not have to be in paranoid fear of the men in black walking us to the border because we made a typo on a piece of paperwork.
Uh, perhaps you don't understand the concept of a guest worker program and the H* visas- they're all designed to do EXACTLY that, that's why the entire class needs to be abolished. I'm in fact surprised that as a Canadian you're here on an H-1b visa to begin with; I'd think a TN visa (which anybody with a Bachelor's degree can get in Canada, Mexico, and the US to move to any of the three under NAFTA) would be the program you'd want instead. It's slightly more risky from a financial standpoint (because you have to be an independant contractor and pay business taxes) but it's much less risky from a deportation upon firing standpoint (because you're an independant businessman instead, can work for anybody on a 1099 basis, and can't be deported at all under NAFTA even if you're suspected of a serious crime). The only thing I can think of is that your employer wants the power over your life, and you wouldn't be able to get the job without trading away that power.
This is the argument of science? Since when?!
Since the very beginings during the renaisance, the entire purpose of science has been to discover the Mind of God, and thus a single ethical system, by examining natural law. The fact that MODERN scientists have a tendency to shirk that responsibility by claiming that ethics has nothing to do with science has been to the detriment of both science and humanity- and forgetting history leads directly to the argument that science is somehow opposed to religion, when in reality science IS a religion, just a rather non-exclusive one (there are OTHER non-exclusive religious and sects within religions out there; Sunnis, Buddhists, Shintos, Jesuits just to name a few).
The objectivity of our observations have no relation whatsoever to the objectivity of our ethical judgments.
That's more cop-out than reality- if the scientific method has any validity at all, then it must have universal validity. Otherwise, it's just another lie taught to schoolchildren, no different than any other.
If you find such a classroom, I guarantee you that it would be a scandal. I would oppose it. Scientists would oppose it. Good teachers would oppose it.
And yet, none of these groups oppose it- whenever somebody proposes a law that requires science classrooms to admit to the unpredictable nature of science, they band together to vote the school board out instead. It is a scandal- but since these types of classrooms are usually opposed to fundamentalist forces on the other side of the debate, they are tolerated and even encouraged.
It's not just wrong--it's against science itself to teach that belief, even according to scientific realists. (Actually, especially according to scientific realists.)
I've yet to meet a scientific realist in this debate- only varieties of atheists who are unable to admit to the fact that theirs is just yet another religion.
All 9 of those jobs will be filled by H-1bs, who can afford to work for $13,000/year less because they paid between a quarter and a tenth what it costs for an American to get a degree.
Until our immigration program is fixed and there are NO more guest workers, the flip side of outsourcing will be indentured servitude, and still no Americans will get jobs. The only way to fix this is to get rid of the H* programs altogether and only let people work in this country who intend to stay and become citizens.
This is a line that most already considered drawn.
Most scientists yes. Most PEOPLE, no. Why do you think the Young Earth Creationists argue so hard for their side against all logic and reason? It's because they believe in a certain OBJECTIVE reality- a final truth- and cannot abide anything other than that truth. The same phenomenon exists on the other side with the hard core atheists.
On the contrary, science is only too unpredictable if any unpredictability is too much.
Under the concept that adults should not lie to the children they are teaching, that is EXACTLY the social situation we've set up in our schools- any unpredictability is too much. When teachers start handing out good grades for the thinking process instead of getting the "right" answer, then we will have an education system that can handle the unpredictability. Until that happens, we will be doomed to this strange situation of saying that we separate religion and state on the one hand, and turning science into a religion (and forcing it onto kids in school) on the other.
No, David Stove's "Wost Argument" and your own (as presented) have nothing to do with morality. I really don't know how you got that idea.
They both have a good deal to do with morality; and here's why. If reality itself is subjective, then each one of us is living in our own little moral world; the decisions we make are always right regardless of how those decisions affect others becuse it's simply the best we can do with the information at hand at the time. In other words, we're already living in a utopia of our own making, the best of all possible worlds.
If, on the other hand, there is an objective reality, an objective right and wrong, then there is one correct path (possibly unknowable at present time due to sects and fractional in-fighting) that is the best action for humanity as a whole, not just ourselves. This is the argument of science and organized religion- and is also the reason why I call science "just another religion".
It's ALL about the ethics and morality; almost none of it is about the actual science or theology involved. Are we ethically allowed to fudge the unpredicability and effectively lie to schoolchildren, as if the purpose of science classrooms to instill SCIENCE as a universal BELIEF, immutable and written in stone? Or should we admit that we don't know even if the path exists yet, but here's science's current thinking on the topic, and yeah, we have this other class called comparative religions and philosophy that shows us a few other ethical paths?
Well, for that matter, MACRO evolution has no practical importance to a wheat farmer in Kansas- no cross breeding imaginable will allow him to grow cows from seed planted in the ground directly, he must go through a grain first.
But yes, all you're talking about is practicality, we don't need to know whether we're in the Matrix or not. But if we're talking about the *very basic* teching concept that adults should not knowingly lie to those they are teaching, it matters a good deal whether or not we label facts as being empirical (and thus, potentially changeable by future experiment) or objective (and set in stone for all forseeable human life until the sun goes dark).
It's most certainly a sociological problem, not a scientific one or even a theological one. If we're going to have a society that mixes different worldviews, it's extremely important to label the worldview our opinion comes from.
In this case, I'm condescending to the technology itself- which is woefully inadequate for such a discussion. A good case in point is that you THOUGHT I was condescending to the GP post instead of making a comment on text-based communications without benefit of body language.
My real point? People are different and you have to tailor your argument to your audience. Scientists forget that, and that's why we have these stupid arguments about science and theology.
Religious people do gamble, and big time.
From YOUR point of view, yes, but from THEIR point of view- well, not all religious people are fundamentalists and even think the book is authoritarian (Catholics, for instance, simply don't). And that's what my point is- getting you to see life from another point of view.
I DON'T think people are simply too stupid to understand evolution. I have observed how any understanding of it is, however, supressed, using taboo, identity, and logocentrism.
Just as evolution has also been forced on people using taboo (can't have religion in a science classroom!), identity (you're a damned idiot if you belive anything other than what we're teaching you, and we'll brand you with an F to prove it) and logocentrism (what's in the textbook is true and you'd better never question it if you don't want to end up in court). Sorry- science does this just as effectively as fundamentalist christianity does- in other words not very well.
Oh, give me a break. Like a kid raised without a father is more tragic than stoning a rape victim who won't marry her rapist.
The funny thing is that you don't actually seem to understand the connection between the two- or for that matter the true purpose behind fatherhood.
The people jumping on the neo-Xian theocracy bandwagon aren't reading their own book very well, they're listening to preachers and upstanding leading-citizens, whose identities need authoritarian beliefs to work.
Well, for that matter, so are most scientists. Instead of doing the work themselves, they refer to the work of others, whose identities need the authority of a Piled-Higher-and-Deeper degree to work.
I'm all for a tribal ethos. We'll just have to break up into groups of a thousand or so, and take care of a nice little patch of nature. The city dwellers will put an end to that pronto, though.
Yep, and that's the problem. Allowing control over other people's lives- it's the same central problem whether you're talking economics or evolution/Young Earth Creationism (the rest of the ID crowd knows that there's no predictive difference between a God setting down rules the universe has to follow and random mutation- but suspects that if we knew the rules the randomness would disappear).
Hear hear. It's a pretty big electromagnetic spectrum, and we only see a wee slice. Just sayin.
And that, in short, is the end result of it all.
Oh, now, you've confused this with some other thread. What reality? it's a contextual thing, moves when you try to pin it down, so obviously we're not very good at observing it. Still, I put my foot down on concrete and it stops, so there's 'good enough,' and then there's some unholy grail of the absolute called Fact. Doesn't matter if that concrete is jiggly mostly empty atoms, or aether, designed by Joe who was designed by Yahweh when He gave Adam balls. It's all fiction, stories to relate. But I can walk, today. And make better concrete by understanding the jiggly atom story, so it's good enough for sidewalks.
Just never forget that it's just a story- just a bigger model describing exactly the same thing.
Deities, on the other hand, well, puny human, what do any of you really know about them? Does the ant understand the finger that flicks it?
Now I KNOW you've read Quinn.
It looks to me like what you are actually saying and what you are trying to say are in contradiction. You're either conflating two definitions of the word "fact" or (less likely) your wording confuses epistemology and ontology.
Exactly. Basically what I'm doing is drawing a bright line between objective reality and experimental reality- and saying that the two are NOT and can never be equal.
You agreed with the statement, "Facts are things that are true, despite whether they are believed or not." This is an ontological claim--it's about what actually exists "out there" in the world beyond our experience. By agreeing, you are saying that an objective reality exists, regardless of our ability or inability to know it. This much is compatible with common sense.
Common sense is rather uncommon these days- but neither has any bearing on reality.
Yet you then said, "And since human beings are only capable of opinion-not actually knowing reality, but only a model of reality we carry around in our heads-facts cannot exist." This is an epistemological claim--it's about what is or can be known--that you've twisted into a malformed ontological claim. You are basically saying that somehow, because of the limits of our knowledge, what exists "out there" in the real world doesn't actually exist at all!
I'd modify that to "doesn't exist for us", since we can't actually know what exists beyond our own skulls with accuracy. We can make some mighty good guesses- but those guesses are incorrect.
I think the responses have been largely in agreement with #1 and #2, but taking great exception to #3. (If not, that at least reflects how I feel about it.) I don't think we ever know the truth about anything as certainly as we know 2+2=4, but I think there are principled ways to go about finding it; and one can certainly say that one given opinion is better than another, or even that one is the best at any given time. I don't see how one can deny--even granting our imperfect access to the world--that some claims are more supported than others, with some claims being so strongly supported that we should give them special consideration. I'd call them facts, even with the understanding that they might change.
My point is, that unless you are *very* explicit about the understanding that facts can change, the implicit assumption in English is that facts are immutable, written in stone- and that's where the argument comes in.
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
I realize this isn't you- just a quote from Stephen Gould- but I say that makes science so unpredictable as to be almost worthless for actual learn-once-and-it's-right-forever knowledge- the kind of knowledge that religion offers. And that's why evolution loses every time in the theological debate and for those people who see philosophy rather than science as defining truth.
Further, to change directions a little, it looks to me like you might have used a form of what philosopher David Stove awarded the title: "Worst Argument in the World." (No insult intended. He chose this argument because it's so common--he's even caught himself making it.)
There's another name for it- moral relativism. Pope Benedict XVI got himself elected Pope by preaching against it. But the converse is also the sin of arrogance- believing yourself to be somehow better than every other human being on the planet by virtue of what, objectively, are merely opinions.
Well, if you want to put it that way, then expecting the science world to accept biblical creationism (or it's ID equivalent) would be like trying to get a christian to accept buddhism as part of his faith.
Absolutely true- so why bother? The answer is found in the main theological mistake of American Evangelical Christianity, and curiously enough, is also the main difference between what they think evolution is and what it really is.
However, I'd argue that science doesn't pretend to answer questions of faith. It doesn't (and really can't) answer the question of if there is a god. Einstein presumed the existence of God (thus his infamous "God does not play dice!" quote about quantum mechanics). Other scientists have been devout athiests, but neither religion, nor the lack of it has seriously hindered most scientists (though it may color how they investigate some issues).
It's actually unavoidable in the data they choose to investigate- religion colors what our definition of "objective reality" is. But that's kind of beside the point- the real issue for American Atheist Scientists and American Evangelical Christians is far more narrow than that.
I think that forcing a specific religion's views to be accepted as 'science' does a disservice to both -- even if one comes from your view that science is simply a different religion (which, I think, most scientists -- especially religious ones would be quick to disagree with you on).
Most human beings are uncomfortable with their worldview being myth and not having control over other people's myths- and that is EXACTLY what has gone wrong with science education in this country and with how both the American Atheists and the American Evangelicals have handled this debate. It's really about control, or the lack thereof. Both sides have their own worldview- equally valid, neither actually what the science is really pointing to (we're just begining to discover that the way DNA and RNA combine and recombine is EXTREMELY deterministic- not chaotic- and thus random mutation is about as objective as the concept of God creating the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago). But what doesn't matter to them is whether or not their worldview is correct- neither one actually is and it doesn't bother them in the slightest- but rather whether or not they can convince others to give money and bend laws to their way of life. And so you get atheistic instructors in Biology insisting that random mutation exists (and by inferance, God doesn't) and you get random preachers filing lawsuits and electing school boards to teach ID as Young Earth Creationism (which is equally wrong).
100% for understanding the joke behind the troll, 0% for getting the point. The point wasn't that IQ actually means anything other than a completely subjective measure of intelligence. The point was that DIFFERENT people start with DIFFERENT types of intelligions and assumptions about the universe- and should be respected for those points of view even when the conclusions drawn from those points of view are radically different than ours.
So you think that if you can't know something, then it can't exist? That nothing exists outside of your mind? That sounds like delusions of grandure to me. If that's not true, that stuff does exist outside of the mind, then stuff exists outside of where subjectivity happens; this is where facts lie*.
I agree that philosophically, facts might exist somewhere- but no human being has the capability of finding them. Every objective fact would have to be found with an objective test procedure- and no objective test procedures can exist for human beings. All human test procedures require a subjective obvserver at some point.
(*lie as in stand/sit, not telling an untruth)
Good- you're learning the main hole of electronic communication.
"Empirical" means "testable" or "known from testing", more or less. It's not really the opposite of a priori, though it's close. It seems you've invented your own defintion of "fact", if you deny that an "empirical fact" is possible. Feel free to invent your own definition for any symbol, but it doesn't really help the discussion much.
:= "usefully predictive". It really makes no difference whether I'm in the matrix or not - "facts" which allow me to make useful predictions about the world I interact with are something I can know.
The problem is that ANY testing- no matter what method you choose- depends on the interpretation of the observer, which is *always* subjective. Testing can never be objective- thus while I agree with you that Empirical Evidence can lead to "justified belief", it can never actually lead to "objective fact". Do you understand the difference? I agree it's a nitpicky bit of line- but it's the difference between having a justified belief and being arrogant about that justified belief.
The definition of "know" has been fought over so long that there's a name for the field (epistemology). You'd probably enjoy reading some books on the subject. Your ideas are oft-repeated in graduate epistemology dicsussions, but ultimately "justified true belief" works pretty darn well as a definition of "knowledge" - it has some problems, but competing definitions have more. Most people were first introduced to epistemology by The Matrix, but that was a very old idea indeed.
I knew about it long before then- I'm a software engineer, and the very difference in definition between software and hardware forces one into epistemology. I agree justified belief works fine for most people in most cases- I'm just saying it's an outright lie to call justified belief "objective fact".
Personally, I go with the defintion of "true" used generally in the sciences. True
It's good enough for you, and it's good enough for science- but it's NOT good enough for the culture war if science wants to win. Science has to be *more* truthfull than religion, not just another religion with another defintion of truth that is as good as any other. Most magician's tricks are usefully predictive- as are most religious rituals for what they're intended for.
The universe exists even without us perceving it. Blind men don't remove the existence of colors, deaf men don't remove the existence of music, ignorance does not remove the existence of fact.
All of the above does so for the individual involved- we each live in our own world of perception, with little or no overlap. Being arrogant about your own perceptive worldview, I can easily imagine you falling to a mental illness I call the Addams Family Syndrome- believing yourself to be sane and the rest of the world to be insane.
You're being dishonest again, or simply showing your lack of knowledge.
No, you're just not being entirely honest with yourself about what we know and can prove vs. what we don't know and simply assume.
Nobody but the creationist talk about random mutaion in this way.
Well, them and high school biology teachers and evolution professors in college and atheists- I've heard all three of the other groups refer to "random mutation" as if it explains something- when in reality it explains just about as much as "God done it"- an admission that you don't want to actually examine the full complexity of the forces involved.
Mutations are not random. The nucleotides in DNA combine in specific ways that are anything but random.
Agreed- completely. But by *NOT* telling that to begining students in the field and avoiding the topic of how DNA combines, evolution becomes nothing more than yet another religion.
How they combine is well understood, and how those combinations affect the phenotype of the organism is a vast area of study that we are only beginning to make headway into.
Yes- but that's no need to avoid the topic by claiming "random mutation" for the input into evolution when in reality we're still continuing the original form of Science- the Search for the Mind Of God by examining His Creation. If you describe it like that- you steal the thunder right out from under the creationists and we can continue without the argument.
But it is a strawman to proclaim that random mutation creates order. Biologists don't make this claim.
Actual research biologists don't. But MILLIONS of teachers at the high school level and college level DO- and so do athiests who have their own religious squabble that they want to subvert the science to support.
Chaos isn't neccessary to teach evolution- and in fact is a detriment- but without Chaos, evolution and ID are one and the same (completely stealing away ID arguments from the Young Earth Creationist crowd and marginalizing them still further- but hey, shouldn't that be the joint cause between Theistic and Atheistic Evolutionists anyway?)
I'm a little confused as to why you made this statement. My understanding is that you don't believe in any sort of objective truth. Then we can't really talk about life and the universe having complexity, except from the stories we tell about it. The ID story (or perhaps its tellers) happens to cause a reaction in some people that causes them to trust the person they hear it from more than the biology story. How is this sad or not sad? An analogy: I understand where Luke's powers come from in Star Wars (the mitochlorians *SHUDDER*.) I don't understand where Neo's powers come from because its not part of the story. It's not sad though.
It's sad to me because objective truth *should* exist and *should* be proveable to anybody who happens to look. It doesn't- and due to that our world deteriorates into waring tribes and factions. It's the same reason I believe in Daniel Quinn's governmental theories but don't want to believe in those theories because they describe a mistake so collosal that everything we believe, everything we hold true, is wrong.
Not at all- I'm going to claim that facts don't exist and EVERYTHING that we think we know is subjective- including the idea that we think or know. We can have justified belief- see below in an alternate thread- but never have perfect knowledge.
Well that depends on your definition of "know", right? Most would accept "justified true belief" as a definition of "knowledge".
I for one do not- and will not. That's a stupid corruption of knowledge- a way to get around having to actually prove anything.
Whether empirical facts are knowable is a matter of one's threshold for "justified", but "justified" != "proven".
Exactly my point. A fact cannot be an objective fact if it cannot be proven. It can be an empirical fact- but by definition, empirical suggests some level of subjectiveness.
Here's the shocker: know that I'm looking at my computer monitor, as long as that's true. Whether my sense data comes from a computer monitor in the "real world" as normally construed, or I'm in the matrix, it doesn't matter. What I call a "computer monitor" is what I've looked at each time in the past - my belief is justified. Now, if I'm halucinating, then my belief is false and I therefore don't have knowledge, but my belief is still justified.
And thus justification is no judgement of truth- or facts. It's just justified subjective belief- nothing more.
agree it is sad that people shy away from learning difficult topics. But ID explains nothing. The universe is what it is, whether you can wrap your church-going brain around it or not. Pretending it is something other than it is - a hard to understand phenomena - is not science, and is not wise. It is foolishness. It is dishonest.
And yet, that's exactly what biology does when it refers to random mutation- pretends that order comes out of a hard to understand phenomena. ID and Evolution have this in common. And I completely agree- it is not science, it is not wise, it is foolishness, it is dishonest.