|
God and Evolution.. (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I was suggesting it was constantly undergoing construction, rather than "created". A table to you is slightly different to a table to me. Of course there must be some consensus other wise communication would be impossible/pointless. |
Are we talking about this in the cognitive science sense? Yes, we both have a different mental image when someone says or writes "table". But in terms of scientific laws, the principles and mathematics used to describe them either model the behaviour correctly or they don't, and there's a limit to how subjective you can say this is. Are you going to tell me that gravity works in reverse for some people, and that falling objects aren't an objective truth?
| quote: | | But objects don't exist in a vacuum and when we observe them we inevitably impose our own definitions on them and construct them. |
Actually, objects do exist in a vaccuum.
| quote: | | Empty space, when examined with quantum theory on a sufficiently small distance scale, is not empty at all. Even at nuclear dimensions (10-13 cm) empty space is filled with particle-antiparticle pairs that are continually flashing into a brief existence, bankrolled on the credit of borrowed mass-energy, only to wink out of existence again as the law of conservation of energy reasserts itself. If the length-scale is contracted to a size appropriate to quantum gravity (10-33 cm) this quantum fireworks intensifies to a "quantum foam" of violent fluctuations in the topology and geometry of space itself. |
Courtesy of Google and John G. Cramer. This is just a theory, but there's lots of info available on it and a fair bit of supporting evidence.
As for imposing definitions, again, there's a difference between imposing definitions (which religion often does), and extracting definitions (i.e. creating them from repeatably observable behaviour).
| quote: | | Just to play devil's advocate... are you sugesting science can be used to asess philosophy, yet philosophy can't be used to analyse science? |
Don't associate logic with science - there's a world of difference between the two. And no, I do not believe that philosophy can be used to assess logic, because it depends on logic to exist. I'm sure that any philosophy course will introduce you to things like "how to construct a logical proof", and the many logical fallacies that are out there.
I hear what you're saying though, and nothing wrong with stirring up as long as you're prepared to have it shaken too. ;) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
Well it all depends what research you are talking about. If you mean stuff like "Why Windows is cheaper to run than Linux - sponsored by Microsoft Corp." then yes, there is BAD science, but in its essence science research is bound to be objective, because the observations need to be repeatable. |
Exactly - and there's a popular term called "junk science" that's used to describe these things (also used to describe things like chocolate causing acne). Google "junk science" and you'll find some interesting stuff. ;)
However, you can't use this to reflect on science as a whole, otherwise you're committing the composition fallacy (read above). :p |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Actually, objects do exist in a vaccuum.
|
I think I didn't express myself clearly. Of course I realise that objects can physically exist in a vacuum. But I was speaking figuratively. I meant a conceptual (?) vacuum. In the sense that.. if you see a knee-high boot you may instantly think "only a slut would wear that"... your concept of the boot has been constructed by culture, society and your upbringing. A person from a different culture might see it as something "classy" or elegant. A shoemaker might see it as poorly made, a Masai tribesman might see it as impractical etc....
In the same way you don't define "table" by its physical description... you automatically have certain associations with it. In that sence it does not exist in a "vacuum" other things always surround it and affect its definition.
There are many philosophical works dealing with logic and various systems of logic... I'm not an expert on this but i think most of them are written by philosophers with a background in Mathematics.
PS - I stir up to have it shaken in return... as long as it is shaken by someone who has something worthwhile to say (which includes most members of this forum including yourself) |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
People should really be taught about logical fallacies in school. It occurred to me reading this thread that a lot of people haven't been educated on the topic (not knowing the meaning of straw man, ad hominem, etc.) |
Agreed. Teaching people how to reason should be given much higher priority than teaching them facts...
In any case, not there was anything wrong with the list you posted, but here's a more complete resource on fallacious arguments:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay.../arguments.html |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):
the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect. For example, someone looked at a picture on one of my web pages, and made a complaint which showed that he hadn't even skimmed through the words on the page. When I pointed this out, he replied that I shouldn't have had such a confusing picture. |
:haha: :haha:
I never knew that this had a formal definition... how many times have I seen THIS!!! |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I think I didn't express myself clearly. Of course I realise that objects can physically exist in a vacuum. But I was speaking figuratively. I meant a conceptual (?) vacuum. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "conceptual" vacuum, but if you're talking about "absolute nothingness" where no matter or energy or anything else exists, then that's really a concept devised by religion - there is no such thing, and there is no evidence to support that there ever was. A vacuum may appear to be nothing on a macro scale, but as you've stated yourself, a person's observation of that vacuum is subject to a certain level of interpretation and may not be the complete objective truth. Using this to infer that there is no objective truth, however, is either incorrect or lacking a step in logic [we don't know the objective truth, therefore there is no objective truth].
| quote: | | In the sense that.. if you see a knee-high boot you may instantly think "only a slut would wear that"... your concept of the boot has been constructed by culture, society and your upbringing. A person from a different culture might see it as something "classy" or elegant. A shoemaker might see it as poorly made, a Masai tribesman might see it as impractical etc.... |
Yes, but again, you're talking about the subjective interpretation. "Impractical", "Classy", "slutty" etc. are all in the mind of the observer. However, it certainly has some objective properties: its colour, its height, its shape, the material it's made from, and so on.
Are you going to tell me that one person thinks it's 6" high and the other thinks it's 10" high, and both of them can be correct because its height is "subjective?" I think the value of existentialism is significantly diminished under such circumstances (i.e. when talking about observable or measurable behaviour).
Supporting the existentialist argument to claim the subjectivity of modern science is to commit the most egregious of generalizations: "Some things are subjective, therefore all things are subjective." |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Are you going to tell me that one person thinks it's 6" high and the other thinks it's 10" high, and both of them can be correct because its height is "subjective?" I think the value of existentialism is significantly diminished under such circumstances (i.e. when talking about observable or measurable behaviour).
Supporting the existentialist argument to claim the subjectivity of modern science is to commit the most egregious of generalizations: "Some things are subjective, therefore all things are subjective." |
Firstly I don't think existentialism deals with teh scientific discourse. It is more concerned with institutions that attempt to "objectivise" those things that are traditionally seen as subjective truths (eg. morality) - this leads people to act in "bad faith" by avoiding responsibility for their actions (ie. "the bible says that this was my only option therefore i had no choice in the matter, but to act the way i did"). Instead the existentialist realises that existence precedes essence for humans (unlike other objects) and that therefore there is always a choice... we are all "condemned to choose" and abandoned to carry teh responsibility for the consequences of our actions. In this sense existentialism in fact draws the line between objetive and subjective truths quite clearly. So I don't think discussing existentialism is relevant here.
Poststructuralism and postmodernism however question the very structure of language and ask whether it is possible to achieve any form of "objective" truth. The argument is clearly imperfect since if there was no such thing as meaning there would be no point writing treatises on meaning :crazy: .
When I spoke of vacuum... I'm talking in terms of the concepts which shape our definitions of things - an abstract concept not related to phyics in any way... a vacuum of meaning. In fact the nature of language itself shapes your concept of the world. In some eastern languages, for example, there is a word for "younger sister" and another word for "older sister" but no word for simply "sister" or "sibling"; The Innuit allegedly have a plethora of words in common usage that describe "snow"; There are languages where brown and blue are considered teh same color etc...
While science is clearly more objective than philosophy, one does have to wonder how much of the scientific community's preconceptions determine which theories are accepted and which aren't.
PS - Back on te topic.. so far there has been a great deal of creationists on this board looking for holes in evolution. Since you have adopted Scientific methodology, your aim is not merely to show that evolution may have some holes, but to demonstrate that creationism is a superior theory... so far i have seen very little on this board or otherwise that addresses this issue. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Firstly I don't think existentialism deals with teh scientific discourse. It is more concerned with institutions that attempt to "objectivise" those things that are traditionally seen as subjective truths (eg. morality) - this leads people to act in "bad faith" by avoiding responsibility for their actions (ie. "the bible says that this was my only option therefore i had no choice in the matter, but to act the way i did"). Instead the existentialist realises that existence precedes essence for humans (unlike other objects) and that therefore there is always a choice... we are all "condemned to choose" and abandoned to carry teh responsibility for the consequences of our actions. In this sense existentialism in fact draws the line between objetive and subjective truths quite clearly. So I don't think discussing existentialism is relevant here. |
Ah, I stand corrected. In this case I agree with you then, I don't believe that there is or ever can be an absolute moral standard, and organized religion has been the basis for much hypocrisy in that regard.
| quote: | | Poststructuralism and postmodernism however question the very structure of language and ask whether it is possible to achieve any form of "objective" truth. The argument is clearly imperfect since if there was no such thing as meaning there would be no point writing treatises on meaning :crazy: . |
Makes sense to me... again, don't want to piss anyone off, but I've always thought of poststructuralism as "junk philosophy" just like scientology is "junk science." It doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to provide a catchall argument for the ignorant (that may be true for you, but it's not true for me). Besides which, claiming the lack of any objective truth to be an objective truth is an inherently self-defeating argument.
| quote: | | While science is clearly more objective than philosophy, one does have to wonder how much of the scientific community's preconceptions determine which theories are accepted and which aren't. |
While I do see where you're going with this, the scientific method tends to ensure that bias won't get in the way of those things. That's why there are formal methods of proof. Now, philosophy is supposed to follow a similar formal method of logical proof, but a lot of these undergrad "philosophy majors" and self-proclaimed experts must have skipped over that part of the course, because they can't seem to put together a coherent argument. And that applies to the next thing you say:
| quote: | | PS - Back on te topic.. so far there has been a great deal of creationists on this board looking for holes in evolution. Since you have adopted Scientific methodology, your aim is not merely to show that evolution may have some holes, but to demonstrate that creationism is a superior theory... so far i have seen very little on this board or otherwise that addresses this issue. |
Which is exactly true. This is why many of us talk about "positive, testable, and falsifiable to the contrary" evidence. That's the scientific method. To "prove" a theory, any theory, you need evidence that's positive (i.e. supports your theory, not just attacks someone else's), testable (as in physically observable, not just rhetoric), and falsifiable to the contrary (the theory can't also be used to explain the exact opposite of what it's attempting to explain, otherwise it becomes a catchall argument). Creationists and evangelists love to misrepresent scienctific theories as mere philosophy, but the fact remains that even if they were mere philosophy, a neverending discourse composed of numerous logical fallacies is not sufficient to argue a philosophical standpoint. There are ways of presenting a logical argument, even when there is no scientific proof, and I haven't seen this done by any Creationist. |
|
|
| Orbax |
interesting article, nothing really solid enough to change a creationists mind though ;) Im still a firm believer in two things
1) God
2) That people believe what they believe because they want to hehe.
interesting read though, and yeah, that title is pretty rough haha. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I'm curious as to why some people think that belief in God automatically implies belief in Creationism. I mean, what's wrong with saying that God (whoever or whatever that is) was watching the Earth throughout history and maybe decided to take a particular interest in our species?
The article mentions that some teachers want to bring Creationism to the classroom in order to pave the way for discussions about God. I wonder if this is true in the general sense - hundreds of years ago, people didn't understand living phenomena too well, so Creationism would have been a great vehicle to move religion, providing "answers" to the masses.
Belief in God doesn't necessarily imply belief that "he" created everything... there are other religions out there that believe in God but don't tell any tall tales about the Origin of the Universe or the Fall of Man or the Son of God. I see Creationism used more often as a tool to convince people that their God exists, and I can see why they'd want to defend it - after all, how else could you "prove" to people that God exists and wants you to come to church every Sunday and donate $50 to your priest? |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Belief in God doesn't necessarily imply belief that "he" created everything... |
maybe he did. He said, well why don't I let E=mc^2 and create everything from strings.. that should boggle their minds a bit.
or maybe he said "rm -f *" way back when and then rebooted the universe (aka big bang) ;)
ok ok.. i know 'bad jokes' |
|
|
|
|
