I agree that the best thing is the collaborative approach, and that same collaberation needs to be applied toward the evaluation of contributions to articles. Concretely, I believe that people or groups should be able to "validate" or give their seal of approval to articles as a whole or specific contributions to them.
Who controls them? Everyone. You let individuals (and groups) evaluation contributions, and you then let them evaluate the evaluators.
Do you simply take a majority vote?
No. First, the metric shouldn't just be a scale of 1-5, but should be more 3 dimensional (sort of like with slashdot's descriptive mods: troll, insightful, etc.--could have one's like troll, poor grammar, decent but doesn't factcheck enough, etc.) [you could even have a fluid/democratic evaluation system]. Second, you let each individual choose what's presented to them (but encourage them to look at things they disagree with--while giving the choice to filter out the trolls completely, or if they choose to filter out the negative evaluations of X groups).
That's it.
The NT doesn't talk about it that much, but Jesus goes "down" into Gehenna and he looks up to heaven and ascends up to heaven.
as for your Biogenesis, there is much study being done of self-organization of non-biological components (falsifiable theorems, evidence and all that good stuff) and it's quite clear that this is another gap in our current scientific knowledge that you can try to shove god into, but when that gap is closed, where does you god go?
Yes, you are being silly. The criterion is not whether I agree or disagree with a theory or idea. I said, "I do agree we shouldn't reject theories just because they disagree with current ones."
I did say I reject supernatural theories (an oxymoron)--not because I disagree with them, but because they're based on superstition, not science. Just like I reject the New Testament's view of the universe as being three tiered with a hell below, earth in the middle, and heaven above--because it's hogwash with no basis in reality.
Calling something you said stupid is no the same as insulting you. i say several stupid things every day but don't think i'm stupid.
further, the only questions i called wrong are those with false premises--not all those that cannot currently be answered. it is wrong to ask "why did god put us here?" or to ask me "when did you stop beating your wife?" because they have false premises.
the question "what is beauty?" has had falsifiable theorems put forward. applying the scientific method to the "subjective"--to consciousness--is possible, but it is different than testing the sodium content of water. the important thing is the method. faith and religion used to fill in the gaps on questions like the makeup of water and other objective parts of the universe, and now they have retreated largely to "subjective" questions which have largely remained behind the ability of the physical sciences to penetrate at this time, but the method of science can still be used to examine subjective questions. superstitution--call it faith if you will--only holds us back.
"Basically what I'm meaning to say is this: we shouldn't reject theories just because they disagree with our current ones, regardless of whether some extra-natural force is involved. Don't you agree?"
No, I don't agree. I do agree we shouldn't reject theories just because they disagree with current ones: that goes against the scientific method. However, you can't talk about a scientific theory that involves a supernatural force, as that is nothing but anti-scientific superstitution.
and further, that may be what you meant to say, but it is not what you were saying. you were basically saying that "evolution has some holes, so we should look at creationism/ID because it disagrees with evolution." besides being sloppy logic in general, in this particular case it's terribly wrong because creationism/ID is anti-scientific.
it is a testament to the progress of human reason and discovery that has been made that such anti-scientific garbage has to cover itself with the banner of science in order to try to gain acceptance.
it is true that "gravity"--taken as a thing as you do--is unproveable, but the "laws of gravity" are proveable and it is the case that we're not actually sure what it is that carries them out.
however, the real problem with your post is that the subtle difference between what I said and what you said is that Newtonian physics is not based on superstitution, but evidence, predictions, etc., whereas creationism and ID are only based on superstitution and sophistry. Your general statement that "the presentation and analyzation of other theories is beneficial" is always true--in general, but in context, you were saying "since evolution is incomplete, we should study creationism" and that is sloppy thinking on the order of saying, "since quantum physics is incomplete we should stupid Zeno"--except you can learn something from studying Zeno.
" So, the only questions we humans should ever ask are those that can be answered by science?"
To be frank, that's a stupid deduction from what I said--and that's being generous.
Because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you mean "answered by what science currently knows" and not "by science" in general." If you mean the latter, I ask how you can know anything apart from the scientific method that isn't based on superstitution, myth, taboo, delusions, etc.
If you mean the former, I obviously don't mean that you can't ask questions current science can't answer, but that you shouldn't turn to religion or other forms of superstition for answers.
""Fundie" scholars who claim that the Genesis account of creation must be taken "literally" in the non-technical sense should do so because in their scholarly opinion, the author meant to be understood that way."
This makes sense abstractly, but it doesn't even make sense to say that a scholar could determine that the author of Genesis meant for it to be understood literally or otherwise:
1. There isn't a single author of Genesis.
2. Our concepts of "literal" and "scientific" don't apply to the authors of Genesis.
The "fundie"'s don't make scholarly arguments because they don't uphold the scientific method--they eclecticly quote scientific sources to try to support their arguments, true.
"if evolution does not have all the answers, then presentation and analyzation of other theories, even ones saying the author of the universe is the creator of life, is beneficial."
This is sloppy thinking. We know that astronomy doesn't have all the answers, but we don't turn to astrology for "benefits." We know Newton & Einstein don't have all the answers, but we don't turn to Aristotle's old theories of motion.
Now, people that don't believe in evolution might contribute to the further refinement of evolution, but I doubt creationists and IDer's will play much of a role in furthering our scientific understanding. New evidence, new interpretations of old evidence, refinement in methodology, etc. will further our understanding, the superstitution, sophistry, etc. that IDer's base themselves on will not.
Daniel Dennett's newest book on evolution has some stuff on how RNA, DNA, and the cell could have been created through self-organization of other compounds.
"I think the problem is that people are claiming that human beings have evolved from animals. This is undeniably an unproven theory, and until you can show me the so-called 'missing link', it will remain unproven."
Direct observation, though the best form of proof, is often not conclusive actually (as observations can be misleading) nor is it the only kind of proof. If I drive by someone who looks like my friend walking home and stop up ahead to wait for him and he arrives, you can't say I can't know it was the same person because without asking, I don't know about the "missing link" from his previous position to his current one.
This analogy is imperfect, but think it through.
We understand in a very general way the laws of motion of evolution, and we can predict what humans would look like if they had evolved from a common ancestor of other apes. The human body matches those predictions, in ways that wouldn't make sense if it had been "intelligently designed."
It's actually debated whether Einstein believed in God. His famous "God doesn't play dice" quote wasn't a statement about theism, but about his view of the universe. He definitely wasn't a creationist.
"Look, it was long-accepted in natural philosophy ("science," if you will) that if anything could be proved, God certainly could."
Not true. At least, many natural philosophers were atheists. Many thought God could be proved, but their basis was superstitution, not science. They have the excuse of not having nearly the scientific knowledge that we do. Current religious people don't have that excuse.
why did jesus look up toward heaven to pray--where is this heaven, and why did he go down to hell? (esp. consider the motion of the earth through space)
oh yeah, because the bible writers imagined the universe consisting of hell below and heaven above.
"Science answers the how and religion answers the why."
This is often repeated but I don't think it makes any sense. Science can't answer the "why" question only insofar as the why questions doesn't make sense. Asking "why are we here?" is either an existentialist type question (which means adding meaning to where non is given us) or wrong (because it presumes a purpose as been given us from the outside).
Science cannot fully answer "why does it work that way?" in all cases, but religion can only make up answers for what science has not explained or use superstituion to cover up what it has.
"The way it's taught now, evolution isn't falsifiable either."
But that's not the point. It's much harder to teach quantum mechanics in a falsifiable way...so should we not teach it?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the best thing is the collaborative approach, and that same collaberation needs to be applied toward the evaluation of contributions to articles. Concretely, I believe that people or groups should be able to "validate" or give their seal of approval to articles as a whole or specific contributions to them. Who controls them? Everyone. You let individuals (and groups) evaluation contributions, and you then let them evaluate the evaluators. Do you simply take a majority vote? No. First, the metric shouldn't just be a scale of 1-5, but should be more 3 dimensional (sort of like with slashdot's descriptive mods: troll, insightful, etc.--could have one's like troll, poor grammar, decent but doesn't factcheck enough, etc.) [you could even have a fluid/democratic evaluation system]. Second, you let each individual choose what's presented to them (but encourage them to look at things they disagree with--while giving the choice to filter out the trolls completely, or if they choose to filter out the negative evaluations of X groups). That's it.
"Is it about "*aweful*" syntax, or awful spelling? Or are you full of awe?" It is misspelled but weirdly enough, "awful" does come from "full of awe".
The NT doesn't talk about it that much, but Jesus goes "down" into Gehenna and he looks up to heaven and ascends up to heaven. as for your Biogenesis, there is much study being done of self-organization of non-biological components (falsifiable theorems, evidence and all that good stuff) and it's quite clear that this is another gap in our current scientific knowledge that you can try to shove god into, but when that gap is closed, where does you god go?
Yes, you are being silly. The criterion is not whether I agree or disagree with a theory or idea. I said, "I do agree we shouldn't reject theories just because they disagree with current ones." I did say I reject supernatural theories (an oxymoron)--not because I disagree with them, but because they're based on superstition, not science. Just like I reject the New Testament's view of the universe as being three tiered with a hell below, earth in the middle, and heaven above--because it's hogwash with no basis in reality.
Calling something you said stupid is no the same as insulting you. i say several stupid things every day but don't think i'm stupid. further, the only questions i called wrong are those with false premises--not all those that cannot currently be answered. it is wrong to ask "why did god put us here?" or to ask me "when did you stop beating your wife?" because they have false premises. the question "what is beauty?" has had falsifiable theorems put forward. applying the scientific method to the "subjective"--to consciousness--is possible, but it is different than testing the sodium content of water. the important thing is the method. faith and religion used to fill in the gaps on questions like the makeup of water and other objective parts of the universe, and now they have retreated largely to "subjective" questions which have largely remained behind the ability of the physical sciences to penetrate at this time, but the method of science can still be used to examine subjective questions. superstitution--call it faith if you will--only holds us back.
"Basically what I'm meaning to say is this: we shouldn't reject theories just because they disagree with our current ones, regardless of whether some extra-natural force is involved. Don't you agree?" No, I don't agree. I do agree we shouldn't reject theories just because they disagree with current ones: that goes against the scientific method. However, you can't talk about a scientific theory that involves a supernatural force, as that is nothing but anti-scientific superstitution. and further, that may be what you meant to say, but it is not what you were saying. you were basically saying that "evolution has some holes, so we should look at creationism/ID because it disagrees with evolution." besides being sloppy logic in general, in this particular case it's terribly wrong because creationism/ID is anti-scientific. it is a testament to the progress of human reason and discovery that has been made that such anti-scientific garbage has to cover itself with the banner of science in order to try to gain acceptance.
yes, but his book references several scientific works on the subject and i can't recall them, but i recall his book.
it is true that "gravity"--taken as a thing as you do--is unproveable, but the "laws of gravity" are proveable and it is the case that we're not actually sure what it is that carries them out. however, the real problem with your post is that the subtle difference between what I said and what you said is that Newtonian physics is not based on superstitution, but evidence, predictions, etc., whereas creationism and ID are only based on superstitution and sophistry. Your general statement that "the presentation and analyzation of other theories is beneficial" is always true--in general, but in context, you were saying "since evolution is incomplete, we should study creationism" and that is sloppy thinking on the order of saying, "since quantum physics is incomplete we should stupid Zeno"--except you can learn something from studying Zeno.
" So, the only questions we humans should ever ask are those that can be answered by science?" To be frank, that's a stupid deduction from what I said--and that's being generous. Because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you mean "answered by what science currently knows" and not "by science" in general." If you mean the latter, I ask how you can know anything apart from the scientific method that isn't based on superstitution, myth, taboo, delusions, etc. If you mean the former, I obviously don't mean that you can't ask questions current science can't answer, but that you shouldn't turn to religion or other forms of superstition for answers.
""Fundie" scholars who claim that the Genesis account of creation must be taken "literally" in the non-technical sense should do so because in their scholarly opinion, the author meant to be understood that way." This makes sense abstractly, but it doesn't even make sense to say that a scholar could determine that the author of Genesis meant for it to be understood literally or otherwise: 1. There isn't a single author of Genesis. 2. Our concepts of "literal" and "scientific" don't apply to the authors of Genesis. The "fundie"'s don't make scholarly arguments because they don't uphold the scientific method--they eclecticly quote scientific sources to try to support their arguments, true.
well those parts (patriarchy and slave holding) *were* based on Genesis!
"if evolution does not have all the answers, then presentation and analyzation of other theories, even ones saying the author of the universe is the creator of life, is beneficial." This is sloppy thinking. We know that astronomy doesn't have all the answers, but we don't turn to astrology for "benefits." We know Newton & Einstein don't have all the answers, but we don't turn to Aristotle's old theories of motion. Now, people that don't believe in evolution might contribute to the further refinement of evolution, but I doubt creationists and IDer's will play much of a role in furthering our scientific understanding. New evidence, new interpretations of old evidence, refinement in methodology, etc. will further our understanding, the superstitution, sophistry, etc. that IDer's base themselves on will not.
Daniel Dennett's newest book on evolution has some stuff on how RNA, DNA, and the cell could have been created through self-organization of other compounds.
"I think the problem is that people are claiming that human beings have evolved from animals. This is undeniably an unproven theory, and until you can show me the so-called 'missing link', it will remain unproven." Direct observation, though the best form of proof, is often not conclusive actually (as observations can be misleading) nor is it the only kind of proof. If I drive by someone who looks like my friend walking home and stop up ahead to wait for him and he arrives, you can't say I can't know it was the same person because without asking, I don't know about the "missing link" from his previous position to his current one. This analogy is imperfect, but think it through. We understand in a very general way the laws of motion of evolution, and we can predict what humans would look like if they had evolved from a common ancestor of other apes. The human body matches those predictions, in ways that wouldn't make sense if it had been "intelligently designed." It's actually debated whether Einstein believed in God. His famous "God doesn't play dice" quote wasn't a statement about theism, but about his view of the universe. He definitely wasn't a creationist.
"Look, it was long-accepted in natural philosophy ("science," if you will) that if anything could be proved, God certainly could." Not true. At least, many natural philosophers were atheists. Many thought God could be proved, but their basis was superstitution, not science. They have the excuse of not having nearly the scientific knowledge that we do. Current religious people don't have that excuse.
why did jesus look up toward heaven to pray--where is this heaven, and why did he go down to hell? (esp. consider the motion of the earth through space) oh yeah, because the bible writers imagined the universe consisting of hell below and heaven above.
"Science answers the how and religion answers the why." This is often repeated but I don't think it makes any sense. Science can't answer the "why" question only insofar as the why questions doesn't make sense. Asking "why are we here?" is either an existentialist type question (which means adding meaning to where non is given us) or wrong (because it presumes a purpose as been given us from the outside). Science cannot fully answer "why does it work that way?" in all cases, but religion can only make up answers for what science has not explained or use superstituion to cover up what it has.
"The way it's taught now, evolution isn't falsifiable either." But that's not the point. It's much harder to teach quantum mechanics in a falsifiable way...so should we not teach it?