Right. But observing the fact does not create the inference that once a theory has been formed to model "rock falling" via such observations, a counterexample will not be observed that forces the revision of the theory (in this particular case, "Gravity"). Inferring that your observations are in some sense "permanently final" would be a non-sequitur.
This is basic scientific process. If it helps clarify, make your analogizing rock made of dark matter.;)
Yes, there's some terminology vagueness here around "evolution". Typically, my debate opponents argue the notion "evolution occurs", when what they mean, and only premise they actually care about advancing is "only evolution occurs"--because of the nonsequitur metaphysical inference they want, and would say out loud if it weren't too irrational to state directly.
And both are fully, and permanently, open to revision by counterexample. That's the nature of a theory, and what admits the process of science into the term "theory".
Unless, of course, you'd like to claim omniscience and assert no such phenomena will ever be discovered.
To parse it down a little more, I would say within Protestants as a whole, the objections to evolution tend to come from the Evangelical and Baptist communities.
Evolution is a "fact" now? So, then, the worldviews that admit only material causal mechanisms are -absolutely guaranteed- to lose in every sense possible? Nice.
(sits back, drinks a beer, and waits for natural selection and entropy to take their inevitable course)
Thanks, but I'm quite aware of most of the permutations of definition. There isn't consensus, and that's more of the problem.
"Memetic evolution", though, I find quite funny. Nothing like a strict materialist basing his model on a purely metaphysical proposed causal mechanism. Perhaps your notion and usage, though, isn't quite as absurd as Dawkins'.
We really need some tighter definitional usage of "evolution" than, in effect, "anything getting better by any standard by any means over any amount of time".
We really need some tighter definitional usage of "evolution" than, in effect, "anything getting better by any standard by means over any amount of time".
Less popular canoe -> customer feedback -> design -> more popular canoe, simply isn't "natural selection" in any way related to the term's Darwinian usage other than the vaguely metaphorical. What's wrong with simply "things tend to be improved"? That usage at least acknowledges the element of teleology, which, strictly speaking is absent from "natural selection". It's not only vague usage, it's also vaguely self-contradictory, in that sense. Ech.
Re:Let's hurry up and get to the point...
on
Science Debate 2008
·
· Score: 1
I'm not making an argument based on probability and relative benefit--rather, one of logical exhaustion.
I'm happy to give you a break though. In fact, I'll just wait.
Re:Let's hurry up and get to the point...
on
Science Debate 2008
·
· Score: 1
Problem is, your reaction is 100% "feeling-driven". This -particular- issue is one for which you have emotional energy, out of literally thousands of science demarcation issues, in a context where much of human knowledge and endeavor is simply outside the scope of scientific method, in a further context where there are thousands of areas where such "need for education" could be applied. How about the atrocious level of American knowledge of the specific questions of recent cultural archeology relating to misperceptions of the Ming Dynasty? Doesn't get you going, I suppose. Why not? Go ahead, you can answer honestly.
Don't get me wrong, though. I consider evolution a very strong scientific model, I simply have an issue with illogical metaphysical/philosophical inferences from that.
No reason I shouldn't really, as a theist.
Basically, making a presumption of your stance from your use of the term "propaganda", my situation as a theist is quite simple:
1. If evolution is not true, you lose 2. If evolution is true, you lose later, from either one of our respective worldviews
We could address more subtle questions such as the working defintion of "evolution" for discussion, or the possible implications of Punctuated Equilibrium from a philosophical perspective--but for the purpose of this discussion (stemming as it does from a sound-bite assertion of "believe evolution (actual personal motivational reasons omitted, as if it weren't obvious) or you're destroying all science"), it would probably be a digression.
Why no concern that some of the candidates are wholly ignorant on the latest information on the testability of String Theory?
Not merely are they unaware of a specialized area of study, no, not at all. They -reject all of science- by their stance! All of their policy decisions then, we can be thus assured, will not only reflect persistent ignorance of all scientific processes in all domains, but will actively hinder its pursuit in all cases.
Get real. You're concerned about "anti-evolution" solely and specifically because of the non-sequitur metaphysical inference you want to make, but know is too irrational for you to state directly.
Following up on Wikipedia, it appears -one- well-documented person has lived over 120 years (3 significant digits), Jeanne Calment. Or as I'll refer to her going forward, Saint Jeanne Calment.;)
There's also "precedent" for the OT's use of significant digits or rounding. Though the upper bound of human lifespan is stated at 120 years (either a Really Good Guess as to what would apply over the next few thousand years, and several billion future people, by a nomad who probably knew a couple hundred people personally--or divinely inspired, depending on your predisposition), and we have evidence that (at last check of Guinness) a couple recent people lived to 122.
So, 31.415926535 as 30, 122.x as 120 would be methodologically consistent.
Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."
--Gospel of Thomas
cf. Matthew 3:9, if you're supposed to. If per Mark 4:12, you aren't supposed to, please don't!
I assume you realize that the people who wrote Genesis would have seen, or heard of, some human injured at some point, and would have not attempted to claim people are filled with clay--which leaves us with allegorical interpretation, or the notion of the conversion of the original matter by divine means.
"Rejects evolution" has lots of possible senses, and I'm wondering if the museum asserts:
a) Rejects that evolutionary processes occur b) Rejects that evolutionary processes exhaustively explain human existence c) Rejects the premise that evolution leads by logical inference to an atheistic position
Anyone know what specifically the museum asserts? My usage subset above, in my mind, ranges from "indefensible" to "very reasonable"--and on the basis of "rejects evolution" alone I'm not sure what an appropriate response would be.
You mean "universal truth" including the truth that different social and historical contexts are different?
I'm confused. You seem to want general rules, without them being general.
Christianity has a "general moral rule", that of "love God and your neighbor as yourself", which is stated to summarize the rest. Application of how to best accomplish this given a particular set of people at a given time would vary based on context. In that respect, from a general philosophical viewpoint, one might say the process closely parallels Utilitarianism, with the "Golden Rule" acting as a meta-ethical heuristic.
Take your time, I know it'd be a big task to do formally. I'm pretty booked-up though, could I schedule taking a look at it in 200 years, and see how you're doing then?
Until then, I think I can get the general outlines of your stance from a simpler question:
Your stance would be: a) "God" is unscientific because it isn't even in the domain of science at all b) "God" is unscientific because science has demonstrated it false c) Both
And yet their representatives get to speak at Universities.
I'll have to be a bit pendantic here. "Their representatives" is not accurate terminology here. If, say, I'm a libertarian political theorist, and someone is who is a communist is associated with me by the association of "politics", does that make me as a libertarian a -representative- of that communist?
"Religious people" is the barest of associations, and can (and is) used for any number of guilt-by-association arguments. But let's at least use reasonable terminology--if Person X does something directly contrary to the ethical structure of a given Belief Q, another Person Y who follows that Belief Q is not made Person X's "representative" by virtue of Person X's acting contrary to that belief. You can't create a chain of "representation" unless X, Y, and Q are congruent.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. But observing the fact does not create the inference that once a theory has been formed to model "rock falling" via such observations, a counterexample will not be observed that forces the revision of the theory (in this particular case, "Gravity"). Inferring that your observations are in some sense "permanently final" would be a non-sequitur.
;)
This is basic scientific process. If it helps clarify, make your analogizing rock made of dark matter.
Yes, there's some terminology vagueness here around "evolution". Typically, my debate opponents argue the notion "evolution occurs", when what they mean, and only premise they actually care about advancing is "only evolution occurs"--because of the nonsequitur metaphysical inference they want, and would say out loud if it weren't too irrational to state directly.
I agree. Evolution occurs.
Feel free to assert that, but your stance is wholly unscientific.
And both are fully, and permanently, open to revision by counterexample. That's the nature of a theory, and what admits the process of science into the term "theory".
Unless, of course, you'd like to claim omniscience and assert no such phenomena will ever be discovered.
To parse it down a little more, I would say within Protestants as a whole, the objections to evolution tend to come from the Evangelical and Baptist communities.
Evolution is a "fact" now? So, then, the worldviews that admit only material causal mechanisms are -absolutely guaranteed- to lose in every sense possible? Nice.
(sits back, drinks a beer, and waits for natural selection and entropy to take their inevitable course)
Thanks, but I'm quite aware of most of the permutations of definition. There isn't consensus, and that's more of the problem.
"Memetic evolution", though, I find quite funny. Nothing like a strict materialist basing his model on a purely metaphysical proposed causal mechanism. Perhaps your notion and usage, though, isn't quite as absurd as Dawkins'.
My sentence spontaneously evolved.
We really need some tighter definitional usage of "evolution" than, in effect, "anything getting better by any standard by any means over any amount of time".
We really need some tighter definitional usage of "evolution" than, in effect, "anything getting better by any standard by means over any amount of time".
Less popular canoe -> customer feedback -> design -> more popular canoe, simply isn't "natural selection" in any way related to the term's Darwinian usage other than the vaguely metaphorical. What's wrong with simply "things tend to be improved"? That usage at least acknowledges the element of teleology, which, strictly speaking is absent from "natural selection". It's not only vague usage, it's also vaguely self-contradictory, in that sense. Ech.
Spore wasn't designed?
I'm not making an argument based on probability and relative benefit--rather, one of logical exhaustion.
I'm happy to give you a break though. In fact, I'll just wait.
Problem is, your reaction is 100% "feeling-driven". This -particular- issue is one for which you have emotional energy, out of literally thousands of science demarcation issues, in a context where much of human knowledge and endeavor is simply outside the scope of scientific method, in a further context where there are thousands of areas where such "need for education" could be applied. How about the atrocious level of American knowledge of the specific questions of recent cultural archeology relating to misperceptions of the Ming Dynasty? Doesn't get you going, I suppose. Why not? Go ahead, you can answer honestly.
Don't get me wrong, though. I consider evolution a very strong scientific model, I simply have an issue with illogical metaphysical/philosophical inferences from that.
No reason I shouldn't really, as a theist.
Basically, making a presumption of your stance from your use of the term "propaganda", my situation as a theist is quite simple:
1. If evolution is not true, you lose
2. If evolution is true, you lose later, from either one of our respective worldviews
We could address more subtle questions such as the working defintion of "evolution" for discussion, or the possible implications of Punctuated Equilibrium from a philosophical perspective--but for the purpose of this discussion (stemming as it does from a sound-bite assertion of "believe evolution (actual personal motivational reasons omitted, as if it weren't obvious) or you're destroying all science"), it would probably be a digression.
Why no concern that some of the candidates are wholly ignorant on the latest information on the testability of String Theory?
Not merely are they unaware of a specialized area of study, no, not at all. They -reject all of science- by their stance! All of their policy decisions then, we can be thus assured, will not only reflect persistent ignorance of all scientific processes in all domains, but will actively hinder its pursuit in all cases.
Get real. You're concerned about "anti-evolution" solely and specifically because of the non-sequitur metaphysical inference you want to make, but know is too irrational for you to state directly.
In 100 years I'll be carrying on the more appealing processes of evolution with whoever you leave behind.
Differential... something... Success, I think it's called.
Following up on Wikipedia, it appears -one- well-documented person has lived over 120 years (3 significant digits), Jeanne Calment. Or as I'll refer to her going forward, Saint Jeanne Calment. ;)
There's also "precedent" for the OT's use of significant digits or rounding. Though the upper bound of human lifespan is stated at 120 years (either a Really Good Guess as to what would apply over the next few thousand years, and several billion future people, by a nomad who probably knew a couple hundred people personally--or divinely inspired, depending on your predisposition), and we have evidence that (at last check of Guinness) a couple recent people lived to 122.
So, 31.415926535 as 30, 122.x as 120 would be methodologically consistent.
"I believe that the Good Lord gave us a finite number of heartbeats and I'm damned if I'm going to use up mine running up and down a street."
--Neil Armstrong
Hint: One of you succeeded.
Right. For biology, we can go earlier. ;)
Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."
--Gospel of Thomas
cf. Matthew 3:9, if you're supposed to. If per Mark 4:12, you aren't supposed to, please don't!
Thanks. I liked the comment better than being upmodded, anyway. ;)
When you cut someone open, it's not full of clay.
I assume you realize that the people who wrote Genesis would have seen, or heard of, some human injured at some point, and would have not attempted to claim people are filled with clay--which leaves us with allegorical interpretation, or the notion of the conversion of the original matter by divine means.
"...which rejects evolution..."
"Rejects evolution" has lots of possible senses, and I'm wondering if the museum asserts:
a) Rejects that evolutionary processes occur
b) Rejects that evolutionary processes exhaustively explain human existence
c) Rejects the premise that evolution leads by logical inference to an atheistic position
Anyone know what specifically the museum asserts? My usage subset above, in my mind, ranges from "indefensible" to "very reasonable"--and on the basis of "rejects evolution" alone I'm not sure what an appropriate response would be.
You mean "universal truth" including the truth that different social and historical contexts are different?
I'm confused. You seem to want general rules, without them being general.
Christianity has a "general moral rule", that of "love God and your neighbor as yourself", which is stated to summarize the rest. Application of how to best accomplish this given a particular set of people at a given time would vary based on context. In that respect, from a general philosophical viewpoint, one might say the process closely parallels Utilitarianism, with the "Golden Rule" acting as a meta-ethical heuristic.
I await your presentation of "disproven".
Take your time, I know it'd be a big task to do formally. I'm pretty booked-up though, could I schedule taking a look at it in 200 years, and see how you're doing then?
Until then, I think I can get the general outlines of your stance from a simpler question:
Your stance would be:
a) "God" is unscientific because it isn't even in the domain of science at all
b) "God" is unscientific because science has demonstrated it false
c) Both
And to be even -more- pedantic, I'll reply to myself to correct "pendantic". ;)
And yet their representatives get to speak at Universities.
I'll have to be a bit pendantic here. "Their representatives" is not accurate terminology here. If, say, I'm a libertarian political theorist, and someone is who is a communist is associated with me by the association of "politics", does that make me as a libertarian a -representative- of that communist?
"Religious people" is the barest of associations, and can (and is) used for any number of guilt-by-association arguments. But let's at least use reasonable terminology--if Person X does something directly contrary to the ethical structure of a given Belief Q, another Person Y who follows that Belief Q is not made Person X's "representative" by virtue of Person X's acting contrary to that belief. You can't create a chain of "representation" unless X, Y, and Q are congruent.