Uh, no. If I grab some fruit flies, irradiate 'em, and wait until I mutate something important in the DNA of one that prevent its offspring from breeding with earlier fruit flies but allows these to interbreed, then I've clearly performed such a demonstration.
No, you haven't. You've just demonstrated that a God with advanced science, in comparison to a fruit fly at least, might have guided evolution and speciation using radiation. There's no difference between the role of the "demonstrator" and a god in this case. So once again, you've created a possible logical model, but haven't actually proved anything about what happened in the case of human beings (and in fact, you can't prove anything one way or the other because no human observers existed before human beings were created).
I don't know of any scientist who doesn't think that children should be taught that all scientific theories are provisional.
And yet, on it's face, that's all the laws proposed in Utah and Kansas require- and scientists fight against such laws.
What they (and I) do have a problem with is singling out one particular theory because it conflicts with the religious beliefs of a vocal minority.
But it's not a particular theory- Evolution isn't a single theory in this case, it's a cross disciplinary network of circular references.
If you have any serious evidence that this picking at evolution is a serious attempt at teaching students the nature of scientific theories in general and not just an attempt to cast doubt on a theory that makes some people uncomfortable, I'm all ears.
From the other side, do you have any serious evidence that the picking at creationism isn't an attack on a single (in my opinion very wrong, but still single) theory of human origins? It's just a bunch of extremeists yelling at each other- doesn't matter which side of the battle you're on, I'm saying both sides are essentially wrong.
I would argue that the people promoting these disclaimers want exactly the opposite: They want students to think that being a provisional idea actually casts special doubt on evolution.
So what? Isn't the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? What has evolution got to fear from this "special doubt", if the evidence exists?
They certainly don't want the students to understand that its provisional status is not at all special in the scheme of scientific theories.
I have no problem with applying the disclaimer universally- Newton's theory of gravity or Maxwell's equation are just as mythical as evolution. I see nothing wrong in saying so.
It's transparent and cynical and insulting.
Well, considering that modern science is into denying the existance of it's own faith in reality, it deserves to be insulted.
That's why we have a problem with it.
Too bad- nobody ever said that tolerating your faith meant not insulting it.
But in that case the beaver would have to exist for the tree to be destroyed, which answers my question. So something can exist even if you are not directly observing it at that moment. So if you turned around to look at where the tree was, and you see that the tree is now lying on the ground when it had previously been standing straight up, you would allow that something that you did not perceive must exist other than the tree that caused the tree to change form, is that right?
Yes, but I don't know what it is. It might have been a beaver, it might have been Vishnu, the 9th incarnation of Shiva. There's no real way to tell.
But by denying your existence have you not produced an idea, a thought?
No, not neccessarily- I could just be a very complex turing machine following a set of rules.
That's Descartes whole point, in order to doubt your own existence, you must acknowledge that your doubt is real and originated within your own mind, thus your mind exists, and you exist.
No thinking needs to be involved, nor a mind to exist- it could all be an illusion.
I agree, logic and math are not the origin of truth. But don't you think they are useful in describing and analyzing truth and truth claims?
Only as far as they themselves mimic reality.
So what does define truth, or is there no such thing?
I'm not sure whether I even exist- how can I know if something that defines truth exists? I believe something does, but that is mere faith.
I know you stated previously that there is no absolute truth for us human beings (which, as an aside, I see as a self-contradicting statement), but does that hold true in general?
We can't know- we're stuck in the box of being human.
Could there be an absolute truth outside of human beings?
I believe there is, but I have no evidence for it- reality must be taken on faith.
But I thought you said that reality doesn't exist?
No, I said that there is no way to know for absolute certainty that reality exists.
Besides, I'm not talking about physical objects, but logical concepts.
Logic is not the origin of truth- perfectly logical things can be lies.
If you want to talk about clouds, you need to consider what a cloud is: a collection of individual water molecules.
Possibly- have you ever seen a single individual water molecule? Or is this just another logical concept, a model that may or may not mimic reality?
When you add 2 water molecules to 2 water molecules you get 4 water molecules.
Maybe, if water molecules exist- but even then we're back to the problem of descrete definition.
Except that none of them are correct. An elephant is not a tree, or a snake, or a rope. Perhaps they share some qualities, but that does not mean they are the same. Poison Hemlock and Parsnips are often confused with one another, but one is good to eat and the other will kill you.
Now you're getting the picture- Human beings cannot know whether reality exists or not, because while we may be right, we can never be correct.
The law of non-contradiction, as I understand it, states that nothing can be one thing and be a different thing at the same time in the same way. So in your example, the elephant could be considered a rope, but not in the same way that it is an elephant. The law of non-contradiction allows for different perceptions of the thing being considered. So would you deny it when stated in that way?
I think it's still a failure of imagination. It's entirely possible that it can be both a rope and an elephant at the same time- we don't know because we're stuck in the box of our own perceptions.
Not in the sense that I mean. You can't use your belief in Zeus (or whatever) to make an airplane to fly across the Atlantic, but I can use my belief in my Scientific models to do just that. In fact, arguably (and I think you would have to argue) that it is solely that my Scientific models do let me build an airplane to go across the Atlantic that justifies me believing them. Justification for belief in myth tends to be much more complex.
Not always- for instance, on the Island of Bali, belief in the Gods keeps the predator/prey ratio in balance for maximum rice harvests. When they tried to apply modern "scientific" agriculture techniques, they got a better rice harvest for one year, then famine for the next 5. Most myths have a core of fact to them, and do have a place in this world- but I find it very interesting that you think Science or any other human belief needs justification, a very religious concept.
This point is absolutely true. It is far from clear what is meant by the "scientific method." However, bypassing this problem is what you get for paying the philosophical price of saying that an electron is just a model, and doesn't really exist. I don't really have to justify my interpretation of the scientific method. All I have to do is show that my scientific models have more utility than those that came before them, and I am justified in believing them.
Depends what you mean by utility. For instance, the airplane. It seems to have great short term utility- in that it moves people and goods very quickly from one place to another. But in the long term, it's not a good idea from an evolutionary standpoint to mix populations- and moving goods often means moving diseases and predators as well. Of course, this isn't just true for airplanes- a Spanish ship in the 1500s brought a few rats to Easter Island that caused the entire ecosystem to collapse, and along with it the human population of that island.
I hate to quote anti-science-fiction authors, but Michael Chrighton was right- just because something CAN be done doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done.
If you are facing a particular tree and you can see it with your eyes (but are far enough away that you can't taste, touch, smell, or hear it), I gather that you would say that you can be certain that this tree actually exists. Now, from your answers it would seem that if you were to turn around such that this tree is no longer in your field of view, you would say that you are no longer certain of its existance, is that right?
Slashdot seems to mind- it won't let me post very quickly at the moment. But yes, that's correct- having turned around and being out of earshot, I don't know that a demented beaver didn't destroy the tree after I turned around. I can't be absolutely certain that it continued to exist.
What do you do with Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum"?
I find myself unable to prove that I am actually thinking- so by Descartes I don't exist.
What about mathematics and logic?
Mere models that may or may not mimic reality- they don't define truth.
Are you saying that we can't be certain that 2+2=4?
Not without more definition. Within the model, 2+2=4 because it's defined to be so, but in the real world, two clouds plus two clouds often equals one big cloud raining on you.
Do you deny the law of non-contradiction?
More that I don't think it means what people think it means- to me it means there is some other hidden evidence that is unknown and perhaps unknowable. Three blind men may describe an elephant in three different ways (a snake, a rope, a tree) and appear to be contradictory- but actually all be correct. A rhino looks an awfully lot like the historical description of a unicorn- but how many people believe unicorns exist even after reading Pliny the Elder?
The trick here is that religion is not the only opiate of the people. The opiate of the people is certainty- that is, knowing something is so true you no longer have to think about it. I'm very much against such opiates- and so is the Roman Catholic Church, at least since those Northern Europeans took over the Papacy.
I'm not sure about that- has anybody ever seen one?
Practically speaking, we may act as if it exists independently of our mathematical model of it.
Yes, but you can do that with any myth.
I also think your definition of "direct observation" is rather arbitrary.
Oh, it is- but the point is that there are almost as many interpretations available for the scientific method as there are for Evolution or the Book of Genesis- so using it as a bar to prevent the teaching of certain things is stupid.
But they are abundantly demonstrated. You just have to look at geologic fossil records from around the world to see evolution and speciation in action.
Well, you see, that's the problem. For the most part, the age of geologic layers are defined by the fossils we find in them- and then we turn around and claim the age that the fossils are by the geologic layer we found them in. That's a circular definition right there. The field sciences are just too soft to depend upon for facts.
There seems to be confusion here over what a 'theory' is. Just because it's a theory doesn't mean that it's correct. It means that it is the best answer that we have been able to come up with to explain something. The biggest key to any theory is that it must be dis-provable. This is where ID fails to fall into the realm of science whereas evolution does. You want to disprove evolution? Easy - go find the fossillized remains of a human in the Jurrasic. You want to disprove ID? Impossible, unless you can get the almighty to appear before me and tell me personally that he didn't do it or maybe some alien species that has been recording our past.
Exactly right- so to call evolution a fact instead of a theory is ridiculous on it's face.
They don't let me on juries- I require to high a standard of proof for them. "Reasonable doubt" doesn't exist for me- there is either doubt or no doubt. Having said that- got the lab reports comparing the bullet to one you DID see come from the gun? That works. Claim that a person is drunk without some sort of lab report proving that their Blood Alcohol Content was greater than.08%? Sorry, you haven't met the burden of proof.
Well, your right, silly me. But we do know of a creature that has evolved a completely new ability, I think that's proof enough of the concept.
It's proof of microevolution- but not speciation. Here's what you need for speciation in this case: a microbe whose parents reproduced asexually, but that microbe reproduces sexually. Now that would be a COMPLETELY new ability. Microbes that take cellulose fibers and digest them isn't a completely new ability- in fact there's a fungus that has been doing it since before nylon was invented, that can do it to nylon as well, and is currently the basis of a new form of ethanol production because it shits sugar and may very well get us off gasoline entirely. I think the people who need to invent speiciation, or require a God for creation, are suffering from the same lack of imagination.
There exists now a microbe with the ability to digest nylon, a substance that didn't exist in nature before man invented it. That microbe cannot breed with any other we know of. Therefore it is a new species and speciation has been observed in nature.
Microbes don't breed at all- they're asexual. So the "proof" of speciation is based on a bad definition of the word "species", unless you think that every single celled animal that reproduces by fission in the world is it's own species.
The physical world exists independently of your opinions about it.
Can you prove that statement beyond all doubt? Or is this something you take on faith?
Now, the nature of this world can be discussed at great length, and our ability to percieve and understand this world can definitely be questioned, but the fact that this conversation can even be percieved to have taken place, and the fact that it will continue to exist on this server if I get amnesia or poke my eyes out with hot irons is evidence that facts to exist, even if we are not capable of actually percieving them or understanding them.
Ah, but if the server's hard drive fails, then the conversation will disappear- with no record. So can it be said to still exist? Or is it just an illusion?
I'm not sure what you mean by "hard science." Nothing is science is ever proven. Instead we create experiments which can disprove theories, but do not. In that sense, the theories are "proven." Now, we have never directly observed speciation. However, we never directly observe Newton's forces. We never directly observe Maxwell's EM fields. If you wish to think of speciation as being only as real as Newton's forces and Maxwell's EM fields, and to believe all of them a tool of theory used to make predictions, fine, but that doesn't mean they should not be taught to younger children.
I think you misunderstand me- I'm fine with teaching myths to younger children so long as they are clearly labeled as myth. I just don't believe in lying to children and telling them that myths are certain truth- regardless of their source. From that point of view, Newton's forces, Maxwell's EM fields, Bohr Electron Shells, and Speciation are all similar- mythological models that explain missing data, no different than the Book of Genesis was at one time.
It also doesn't mean that there aren't very important epistemological differences between Biology and religion which are glossed over when Biology is referred to as "just another religion."
Ok, you've just left the realm of my vocabulary behind- a good job there seeing how large my vocabulary is to begin with. That's interesting, a whole new set of philosophy I hadn't heard about. But philosophy is in and of itself "just another religion" in this context- so the attempt to make a difference between science and other religions isn't very valueable. Once the idea is that observational data is the very center of the scientific method, judgements for rejecting observations become unsupportable.
Postivism is the problem, not negativism. One must actually observe this to believe in it- fortuneately red shift and doppler effects are easily demonstrateable by experiment.
In fact, I'd say that the only people who take creation litterally are idiot scientists and Christians who quote bible verses at you but can't quote the verse next to the one just quoted. In other words, fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are certain- and thus always wrong.
There are many opinions about cosmology, but religious stories are not among the facts.
That's funny- but a very good example, since almost all cosmology is made up of religious stories unsupported by observable facts.
I'm not so much surprised by how many people believe in literal biblical creation, I'm disgusted by it. That's one reason it has to stop being taught as science, or anything but a metaphysical story, in publicly funded schools. I don't think anyone will be surprised how many people stop believing in literal biblical creation once the free ride in the name of (pseudo)science is over.
And yet you simply want to subplant it with something else that is equally based in faith.
You are certainly welcome to be a skeptic. The fact of the matter is that, skepticism aside, by some miracle science gives us technology that works, and part of science is relying on others. However, unlike in religion, in principle, anyone can repeat an experiment. Religion, of course, has inherently individual divine inspiration.
Yes, as far as physics is concerned. Yes as far as the hard sciences are concerned. The problem is, though, specifically speciation has yet to be proven, and no experiment exists to prove it. Thus, speciation is not a hard science- and if we're going to be skeptical and say that kids should only be taught hard sciences, then biology class becomes incredibly hard to teach. Science in general is somewhat hard to teach because it requires relying on others, some level of trust in other human beings.
As much as I don't trust other human beings- I think we'd be better off teaching religions. All religions. And that contradiction isn't as much a sign of a lie, as a sign of a different view of the truth. In other words, teach people to THINK instead of just OBSERVE.
There is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia for definitions. Facts, ya, that can be a problem but definitions are fine. The whole point of having a term defined is so that everyone can agree on it's meaning.
Ah, but you see, I don't agree with that meaning- and refering to a website that can be edited by anybody to support a particular point of view doesn't help.
So when I posted the definition of evolution, I was referring to the accepted meaning of the term.
But it isn't- it's what one person "accepted", and others may or may not have a different viewpoint.
If it means something else to you then that's OK, but you should assume that the definition accurately describes what it means to other people.
Or at least one other person- the person who wrote the article.
If you want to argue about the definition, provide references.
Actually, I don't want to argue about the definition, because the source is worthless, as would any other reference source I can think of. They're all tainted by people with a political stake in the extremes; people who are certain about something that there is no direct observational evidence of.
Every single accepted theory is a proof by consensus because nothing can ever be proven correct for certain. Will gravity stop working tomorrow? Possibly. Who really knows. We have models that have been shown to be very accurate at predicting the future but we can't assume they always will be. A good theory can be proven false quite easily, but can never be proven correct. Only after years of tests by multiple scientists where the data always fits with the theory can a theory actually be accepted by the scientific community. Note that it is never proven, just accepted by consensus.
Exactly. And thus, what the requirement in Utah and Kansas claimed is essentialy correct. Which makes me wonder why anybody would bother to argue against it, and what such people are hiding.
And why should historical records be considered accurate at all?
Well, that's the debate isn't it? At this level, we can't even be sure of other people's observations- but the scientific method claims we should trust observations.
what makes them reliable?
Nothing- in fact our own observations aren't very reliable, but you're the one who wanted to rely on the scientific method.
And precisely what observations are being invented here that you dislike so much?
Actually, what I dislike is fundamentalism- on both sides of the equation. The core of fundamentalism is certainty- saying something is true when there is no possible way of knowing if it is true or not.
And where exactly did you even learn what the scientific method was?
From a science teacher in high school- hypothesis, theory, experiment. But the problem is, no experiment can tell you 100% for certain what happened in the past- so history, geology, many parts of biology, in fact just about anything beyond basic chemistry and physics becomes a pseudoscience.
Believe it or not, it isn't what scientists use
Well, not REAL scientists anyway- real scientists can conduct experiments and prove what they say. It would take 4.8 billion years to recreate evolution as an experiment to collect the observational data to prove it. Thus anybody who uses something other than the scientific method, is not a scientist.
There's no point arguing metaphyics, science, or the difference, with you when you can't distinguish between unknown and unknowable.
Or for that matter, with a man so blinded by faith that he thinks his mythological models are certain truth.
Your invocation of the written word as the only way to know the past is even more discouraging.
Well, let's just say for human beings who aren't fooling themselves as to the nature of human memory, it is the only way to know the past. But that shouldn't bother a fundamentalist like you! After all, your mythological models are the truth, observational evidence be damned!
But you seal the end of my part in this argument when you get my specious question - the famous trick dependence on a hidden premise - by somehow finding an appeal to faith in it.
It is an appeal to faith- the faith that I am human instead of a machine, the faith that I have a wife, the faith that I beat my wife. OR, if it's truly specious- it's based on a belief that words have meaning and that it is a trick. Everything is based on beliefs and definitions- which mean absolutely nothing.
There is no such element, and you don't know what you're talking about.
There is an element of faith in everything that human beings believe in. Until you understand that, there is no hope for finding truth.
It's pretty clear that you don't understand the scientific method.
It's far more clear that you don't from the next statement.
Observations need not be direct, and in fact, a vast number of the sciences deal with things that cannot be directly observed.
Those are, by the very definition of the scientific method, pseudosciences, not real science.
I can't directly observe electrons, viruses or black holes, and yet by using tools and inference, I can confirm their existence and their general properties.
Electrons, viruses, and black holes don't exist. They are mythological models that attempt to explain phenomena that we CAN directly measure- but that's all they are. Thought models. To claim that a model IS reality leaves the realm of science behind and enters into the world of religions.
Your notion of science is an absurd and silly strawman, and a perfect example of how people can go through the school system and come out the other side with no idea of what the scientific method is.
Hey, I'm not the one taking faith-based models and claiming them to be absolute truth.
Evolution and speciation are science, as abundantly demonstrated all over the place.
Uh, no, they aren't abundantly demonstrated. The potential still exists of the inferred evidence being nothing more than the ramblings of people who can't admit when they're wrong. We have observations of microevolution; but no observations of speciation within recorded history. Speciation must be taken on faith, and therefore is not science any more than saying "some god created the species" is science. It's beyond the realm of what observation can show us, and therefore, is outside of the realm of science. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no. If I grab some fruit flies, irradiate 'em, and wait until I mutate something important in the DNA of one that prevent its offspring from breeding with earlier fruit flies but allows these to interbreed, then I've clearly performed such a demonstration.
No, you haven't. You've just demonstrated that a God with advanced science, in comparison to a fruit fly at least, might have guided evolution and speciation using radiation. There's no difference between the role of the "demonstrator" and a god in this case. So once again, you've created a possible logical model, but haven't actually proved anything about what happened in the case of human beings (and in fact, you can't prove anything one way or the other because no human observers existed before human beings were created).
I don't know of any scientist who doesn't think that children should be taught that all scientific theories are provisional.
And yet, on it's face, that's all the laws proposed in Utah and Kansas require- and scientists fight against such laws.
What they (and I) do have a problem with is singling out one particular theory because it conflicts with the religious beliefs of a vocal minority.
But it's not a particular theory- Evolution isn't a single theory in this case, it's a cross disciplinary network of circular references.
If you have any serious evidence that this picking at evolution is a serious attempt at teaching students the nature of scientific theories in general and not just an attempt to cast doubt on a theory that makes some people uncomfortable, I'm all ears.
From the other side, do you have any serious evidence that the picking at creationism isn't an attack on a single (in my opinion very wrong, but still single) theory of human origins? It's just a bunch of extremeists yelling at each other- doesn't matter which side of the battle you're on, I'm saying both sides are essentially wrong.
I would argue that the people promoting these disclaimers want exactly the opposite: They want students to think that being a provisional idea actually casts special doubt on evolution.
So what? Isn't the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? What has evolution got to fear from this "special doubt", if the evidence exists?
They certainly don't want the students to understand that its provisional status is not at all special in the scheme of scientific theories.
I have no problem with applying the disclaimer universally- Newton's theory of gravity or Maxwell's equation are just as mythical as evolution. I see nothing wrong in saying so.
It's transparent and cynical and insulting.
Well, considering that modern science is into denying the existance of it's own faith in reality, it deserves to be insulted.
That's why we have a problem with it.
Too bad- nobody ever said that tolerating your faith meant not insulting it.
But in that case the beaver would have to exist for the tree to be destroyed, which answers my question. So something can exist even if you are not directly observing it at that moment. So if you turned around to look at where the tree was, and you see that the tree is now lying on the ground when it had previously been standing straight up, you would allow that something that you did not perceive must exist other than the tree that caused the tree to change form, is that right?
Yes, but I don't know what it is. It might have been a beaver, it might have been Vishnu, the 9th incarnation of Shiva. There's no real way to tell.
But by denying your existence have you not produced an idea, a thought?
No, not neccessarily- I could just be a very complex turing machine following a set of rules.
That's Descartes whole point, in order to doubt your own existence, you must acknowledge that your doubt is real and originated within your own mind, thus your mind exists, and you exist.
No thinking needs to be involved, nor a mind to exist- it could all be an illusion.
I agree, logic and math are not the origin of truth. But don't you think they are useful in describing and analyzing truth and truth claims?
Only as far as they themselves mimic reality.
So what does define truth, or is there no such thing?
I'm not sure whether I even exist- how can I know if something that defines truth exists? I believe something does, but that is mere faith.
I know you stated previously that there is no absolute truth for us human beings (which, as an aside, I see as a self-contradicting statement), but does that hold true in general?
We can't know- we're stuck in the box of being human.
Could there be an absolute truth outside of human beings?
I believe there is, but I have no evidence for it- reality must be taken on faith.
But I thought you said that reality doesn't exist?
No, I said that there is no way to know for absolute certainty that reality exists.
Besides, I'm not talking about physical objects, but logical concepts.
Logic is not the origin of truth- perfectly logical things can be lies.
If you want to talk about clouds, you need to consider what a cloud is: a collection of individual water molecules.
Possibly- have you ever seen a single individual water molecule? Or is this just another logical concept, a model that may or may not mimic reality?
When you add 2 water molecules to 2 water molecules you get 4 water molecules.
Maybe, if water molecules exist- but even then we're back to the problem of descrete definition.
Except that none of them are correct. An elephant is not a tree, or a snake, or a rope. Perhaps they share some qualities, but that does not mean they are the same. Poison Hemlock and Parsnips are often confused with one another, but one is good to eat and the other will kill you.
Now you're getting the picture- Human beings cannot know whether reality exists or not, because while we may be right, we can never be correct.
The law of non-contradiction, as I understand it, states that nothing can be one thing and be a different thing at the same time in the same way. So in your example, the elephant could be considered a rope, but not in the same way that it is an elephant. The law of non-contradiction allows for different perceptions of the thing being considered. So would you deny it when stated in that way?
I think it's still a failure of imagination. It's entirely possible that it can be both a rope and an elephant at the same time- we don't know because we're stuck in the box of our own perceptions.
Not in the sense that I mean. You can't use your belief in Zeus (or whatever) to make an airplane to fly across the Atlantic, but I can use my belief in my Scientific models to do just that. In fact, arguably (and I think you would have to argue) that it is solely that my Scientific models do let me build an airplane to go across the Atlantic that justifies me believing them. Justification for belief in myth tends to be much more complex.
Not always- for instance, on the Island of Bali, belief in the Gods keeps the predator/prey ratio in balance for maximum rice harvests. When they tried to apply modern "scientific" agriculture techniques, they got a better rice harvest for one year, then famine for the next 5. Most myths have a core of fact to them, and do have a place in this world- but I find it very interesting that you think Science or any other human belief needs justification, a very religious concept.
This point is absolutely true. It is far from clear what is meant by the "scientific method." However, bypassing this problem is what you get for paying the philosophical price of saying that an electron is just a model, and doesn't really exist. I don't really have to justify my interpretation of the scientific method. All I have to do is show that my scientific models have more utility than those that came before them, and I am justified in believing them.
Depends what you mean by utility. For instance, the airplane. It seems to have great short term utility- in that it moves people and goods very quickly from one place to another. But in the long term, it's not a good idea from an evolutionary standpoint to mix populations- and moving goods often means moving diseases and predators as well. Of course, this isn't just true for airplanes- a Spanish ship in the 1500s brought a few rats to Easter Island that caused the entire ecosystem to collapse, and along with it the human population of that island.
I hate to quote anti-science-fiction authors, but Michael Chrighton was right- just because something CAN be done doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done.
If you are facing a particular tree and you can see it with your eyes (but are far enough away that you can't taste, touch, smell, or hear it), I gather that you would say that you can be certain that this tree actually exists. Now, from your answers it would seem that if you were to turn around such that this tree is no longer in your field of view, you would say that you are no longer certain of its existance, is that right?
Slashdot seems to mind- it won't let me post very quickly at the moment. But yes, that's correct- having turned around and being out of earshot, I don't know that a demented beaver didn't destroy the tree after I turned around. I can't be absolutely certain that it continued to exist.
What do you do with Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum"?
I find myself unable to prove that I am actually thinking- so by Descartes I don't exist.
What about mathematics and logic?
Mere models that may or may not mimic reality- they don't define truth.
Are you saying that we can't be certain that 2+2=4?
Not without more definition. Within the model, 2+2=4 because it's defined to be so, but in the real world, two clouds plus two clouds often equals one big cloud raining on you.
Do you deny the law of non-contradiction?
More that I don't think it means what people think it means- to me it means there is some other hidden evidence that is unknown and perhaps unknowable. Three blind men may describe an elephant in three different ways (a snake, a rope, a tree) and appear to be contradictory- but actually all be correct. A rhino looks an awfully lot like the historical description of a unicorn- but how many people believe unicorns exist even after reading Pliny the Elder?
The trick here is that religion is not the only opiate of the people. The opiate of the people is certainty- that is, knowing something is so true you no longer have to think about it. I'm very much against such opiates- and so is the Roman Catholic Church, at least since those Northern Europeans took over the Papacy.
The electron has a factual basis.
I'm not sure about that- has anybody ever seen one?
Practically speaking, we may act as if it exists independently of our mathematical model of it.
Yes, but you can do that with any myth.
I also think your definition of "direct observation" is rather arbitrary.
Oh, it is- but the point is that there are almost as many interpretations available for the scientific method as there are for Evolution or the Book of Genesis- so using it as a bar to prevent the teaching of certain things is stupid.
But they are abundantly demonstrated. You just have to look at geologic fossil records from around the world to see evolution and speciation in action.
Well, you see, that's the problem. For the most part, the age of geologic layers are defined by the fossils we find in them- and then we turn around and claim the age that the fossils are by the geologic layer we found them in. That's a circular definition right there. The field sciences are just too soft to depend upon for facts.
There seems to be confusion here over what a 'theory' is. Just because it's a theory doesn't mean that it's correct. It means that it is the best answer that we have been able to come up with to explain something. The biggest key to any theory is that it must be dis-provable. This is where ID fails to fall into the realm of science whereas evolution does. You want to disprove evolution? Easy - go find the fossillized remains of a human in the Jurrasic. You want to disprove ID? Impossible, unless you can get the almighty to appear before me and tell me personally that he didn't do it or maybe some alien species that has been recording our past.
Exactly right- so to call evolution a fact instead of a theory is ridiculous on it's face.
They don't let me on juries- I require to high a standard of proof for them. "Reasonable doubt" doesn't exist for me- there is either doubt or no doubt. Having said that- got the lab reports comparing the bullet to one you DID see come from the gun? That works. Claim that a person is drunk without some sort of lab report proving that their Blood Alcohol Content was greater than .08%? Sorry, you haven't met the burden of proof.
Well, your right, silly me. But we do know of a creature that has evolved a completely new ability, I think that's proof enough of the concept.
It's proof of microevolution- but not speciation. Here's what you need for speciation in this case: a microbe whose parents reproduced asexually, but that microbe reproduces sexually. Now that would be a COMPLETELY new ability. Microbes that take cellulose fibers and digest them isn't a completely new ability- in fact there's a fungus that has been doing it since before nylon was invented, that can do it to nylon as well, and is currently the basis of a new form of ethanol production because it shits sugar and may very well get us off gasoline entirely. I think the people who need to invent speiciation, or require a God for creation, are suffering from the same lack of imagination.
If I can't see the tree- then I can't even say that the tree exists, let alone the sound. At least, not with absolute certainty.
Which is the core of my point- absolute certainty doesn't exist for human beings, nor reality.
There exists now a microbe with the ability to digest nylon, a substance that didn't exist in nature before man invented it. That microbe cannot breed with any other we know of. Therefore it is a new species and speciation has been observed in nature.
Microbes don't breed at all- they're asexual. So the "proof" of speciation is based on a bad definition of the word "species", unless you think that every single celled animal that reproduces by fission in the world is it's own species.
The physical world exists independently of your opinions about it.
Can you prove that statement beyond all doubt? Or is this something you take on faith?
Now, the nature of this world can be discussed at great length, and our ability to percieve and understand this world can definitely be questioned, but the fact that this conversation can even be percieved to have taken place, and the fact that it will continue to exist on this server if I get amnesia or poke my eyes out with hot irons is evidence that facts to exist, even if we are not capable of actually percieving them or understanding them.
Ah, but if the server's hard drive fails, then the conversation will disappear- with no record. So can it be said to still exist? Or is it just an illusion?
I'm not sure what you mean by "hard science." Nothing is science is ever proven. Instead we create experiments which can disprove theories, but do not. In that sense, the theories are "proven." Now, we have never directly observed speciation. However, we never directly observe Newton's forces. We never directly observe Maxwell's EM fields. If you wish to think of speciation as being only as real as Newton's forces and Maxwell's EM fields, and to believe all of them a tool of theory used to make predictions, fine, but that doesn't mean they should not be taught to younger children.
I think you misunderstand me- I'm fine with teaching myths to younger children so long as they are clearly labeled as myth. I just don't believe in lying to children and telling them that myths are certain truth- regardless of their source. From that point of view, Newton's forces, Maxwell's EM fields, Bohr Electron Shells, and Speciation are all similar- mythological models that explain missing data, no different than the Book of Genesis was at one time.
It also doesn't mean that there aren't very important epistemological differences between Biology and religion which are glossed over when Biology is referred to as "just another religion."
Ok, you've just left the realm of my vocabulary behind- a good job there seeing how large my vocabulary is to begin with. That's interesting, a whole new set of philosophy I hadn't heard about. But philosophy is in and of itself "just another religion" in this context- so the attempt to make a difference between science and other religions isn't very valueable. Once the idea is that observational data is the very center of the scientific method, judgements for rejecting observations become unsupportable.
Postivism is the problem, not negativism. One must actually observe this to believe in it- fortuneately red shift and doppler effects are easily demonstrateable by experiment.
In fact, I'd say that the only people who take creation litterally are idiot scientists and Christians who quote bible verses at you but can't quote the verse next to the one just quoted. In other words, fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are certain- and thus always wrong.
No body. Ask your mom about Santa Claus, too.
Now who can't tell the difference between myth and fact? Models are always invented explainations.
I didn't say schools shouldn't teach myths - just they shouldn't teach that myths are facts.
That's the first thing I've seen you say that I agree with out of hand. The problem is, I think, that you think facts exist.
There are many opinions about cosmology, but religious stories are not among the facts.
That's funny- but a very good example, since almost all cosmology is made up of religious stories unsupported by observable facts.
I'm not so much surprised by how many people believe in literal biblical creation, I'm disgusted by it. That's one reason it has to stop being taught as science, or anything but a metaphysical story, in publicly funded schools. I don't think anyone will be surprised how many people stop believing in literal biblical creation once the free ride in the name of (pseudo)science is over.
And yet you simply want to subplant it with something else that is equally based in faith.
You are certainly welcome to be a skeptic. The fact of the matter is that, skepticism aside, by some miracle science gives us technology that works, and part of science is relying on others. However, unlike in religion, in principle, anyone can repeat an experiment. Religion, of course, has inherently individual divine inspiration.
Yes, as far as physics is concerned. Yes as far as the hard sciences are concerned. The problem is, though, specifically speciation has yet to be proven, and no experiment exists to prove it. Thus, speciation is not a hard science- and if we're going to be skeptical and say that kids should only be taught hard sciences, then biology class becomes incredibly hard to teach. Science in general is somewhat hard to teach because it requires relying on others, some level of trust in other human beings.
As much as I don't trust other human beings- I think we'd be better off teaching religions. All religions. And that contradiction isn't as much a sign of a lie, as a sign of a different view of the truth. In other words, teach people to THINK instead of just OBSERVE.
There is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia for definitions. Facts, ya, that can be a problem but definitions are fine. The whole point of having a term defined is so that everyone can agree on it's meaning.
Ah, but you see, I don't agree with that meaning- and refering to a website that can be edited by anybody to support a particular point of view doesn't help.
So when I posted the definition of evolution, I was referring to the accepted meaning of the term.
But it isn't- it's what one person "accepted", and others may or may not have a different viewpoint.
If it means something else to you then that's OK, but you should assume that the definition accurately describes what it means to other people.
Or at least one other person- the person who wrote the article.
If you want to argue about the definition, provide references.
Actually, I don't want to argue about the definition, because the source is worthless, as would any other reference source I can think of. They're all tainted by people with a political stake in the extremes; people who are certain about something that there is no direct observational evidence of.
Every single accepted theory is a proof by consensus because nothing can ever be proven correct for certain. Will gravity stop working tomorrow? Possibly. Who really knows. We have models that have been shown to be very accurate at predicting the future but we can't assume they always will be. A good theory can be proven false quite easily, but can never be proven correct. Only after years of tests by multiple scientists where the data always fits with the theory can a theory actually be accepted by the scientific community. Note that it is never proven, just accepted by consensus.
Exactly. And thus, what the requirement in Utah and Kansas claimed is essentialy correct. Which makes me wonder why anybody would bother to argue against it, and what such people are hiding.
And why should historical records be considered accurate at all?
Well, that's the debate isn't it? At this level, we can't even be sure of other people's observations- but the scientific method claims we should trust observations.
what makes them reliable?
Nothing- in fact our own observations aren't very reliable, but you're the one who wanted to rely on the scientific method.
And precisely what observations are being invented here that you dislike so much?
Actually, what I dislike is fundamentalism- on both sides of the equation. The core of fundamentalism is certainty- saying something is true when there is no possible way of knowing if it is true or not.
And where exactly did you even learn what the scientific method was?
From a science teacher in high school- hypothesis, theory, experiment. But the problem is, no experiment can tell you 100% for certain what happened in the past- so history, geology, many parts of biology, in fact just about anything beyond basic chemistry and physics becomes a pseudoscience.
Believe it or not, it isn't what scientists use
Well, not REAL scientists anyway- real scientists can conduct experiments and prove what they say. It would take 4.8 billion years to recreate evolution as an experiment to collect the observational data to prove it. Thus anybody who uses something other than the scientific method, is not a scientist.
but rather is a classic Creationist strawman.
Well, I reject that too, but on other grounds...
There's no point arguing metaphyics, science, or the difference, with you when you can't distinguish between unknown and unknowable.
Or for that matter, with a man so blinded by faith that he thinks his mythological models are certain truth.
Your invocation of the written word as the only way to know the past is even more discouraging.
Well, let's just say for human beings who aren't fooling themselves as to the nature of human memory, it is the only way to know the past. But that shouldn't bother a fundamentalist like you! After all, your mythological models are the truth, observational evidence be damned!
But you seal the end of my part in this argument when you get my specious question - the famous trick dependence on a hidden premise - by somehow finding an appeal to faith in it.
It is an appeal to faith- the faith that I am human instead of a machine, the faith that I have a wife, the faith that I beat my wife. OR, if it's truly specious- it's based on a belief that words have meaning and that it is a trick. Everything is based on beliefs and definitions- which mean absolutely nothing.
There is no such element, and you don't know what you're talking about.
There is an element of faith in everything that human beings believe in. Until you understand that, there is no hope for finding truth.
It's pretty clear that you don't understand the scientific method.
It's far more clear that you don't from the next statement.
Observations need not be direct, and in fact, a vast number of the sciences deal with things that cannot be directly observed.
Those are, by the very definition of the scientific method, pseudosciences, not real science.
I can't directly observe electrons, viruses or black holes, and yet by using tools and inference, I can confirm their existence and their general properties.
Electrons, viruses, and black holes don't exist. They are mythological models that attempt to explain phenomena that we CAN directly measure- but that's all they are. Thought models. To claim that a model IS reality leaves the realm of science behind and enters into the world of religions.
Your notion of science is an absurd and silly strawman, and a perfect example of how people can go through the school system and come out the other side with no idea of what the scientific method is.
Hey, I'm not the one taking faith-based models and claiming them to be absolute truth.
Evolution and speciation are science, as abundantly demonstrated all over the place.
Uh, no, they aren't abundantly demonstrated. The potential still exists of the inferred evidence being nothing more than the ramblings of people who can't admit when they're wrong. We have observations of microevolution; but no observations of speciation within recorded history. Speciation must be taken on faith, and therefore is not science any more than saying "some god created the species" is science. It's beyond the realm of what observation can show us, and therefore, is outside of the realm of science. Sorry.