|
Intelligent Design Theory (pg. 32)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
My problem was I knew a Theory had to hold it's own weight for a certain time before it could gain some serious momentum. And I know a little bit about a lot of Theories and can explain some on a general level (lamen terms) but never thought of taking it to a philosophical level even though I knew there were crackpot Scientist out there with some wild ideas.
My down fall in this.
I can admit this. |
Thank you. I apologize for my taking jabs at you. Philosophical debates tend to get heated once in awhile ;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Philosophical bollocks? Where the do you think science came from? Philosophy, metaphysics, etc. Just because you came up with a ty metaphor doesn't mean you have to take a jab at the subject that gave birth to your precious science. |
Early man was more concerned with making fire and tools than contemplating their existence. The earliest forms of advancement were scientific in nature, not philosophical. Obviously once man reached a certain stage philosophy certainly did help with the advancement of science, but a lot of that is due to the fact its far easier to look at the sky and wonder ‘where did I come from’ than to build a combustion engine, split the atom or land on the moon.
My ty metaphor was just in response to people claiming because an aspect of a theory is improved, it somehow makes it a new theory. It doesn’t. I take issue with the constant use of “disproven” or “wrong” when discussing incremental improvements to theory.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
And AGAIN I never said the Theory of Relativity was wrong. It's just a fact that theories (scientific or otherwise) are constantly being amended, and even disproven. |
You said (repeatedly) that it wasn’t proven. It has been, and I provided at least 3 examples (GPS, satellites, time dilation) where it had been.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Apparently you have the gift of omniscience since you're basically claiming that the Theory of Relativity will always hold true, no matter what. Even if a better theory comes out, you just backpedal saying that "Oh, well relativity is still a part of the better theory." |
It will always hold true, for the aspects that it seeks to explain. This is evidenced by working technology right now. That doesn’t mean it may not be altered some time in the future, but the aspects we use right now, are proven insofar as anything can be proven, just like newton’s laws are proven, even if their scope and applicability turned out to be limited.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I'm starting a new hypothesis that everyone who keeps arguing about this, despite the fact that there is no possible way for them to predict the future and whether Relativity will hold true despite advancements in the way we understand astrophysics, is a jackass. |
And you’ve repeatedly dodged the issue of working technology. How can something be disproven if the technology based upon it works?
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Theseus' Ship huh? I must have misheard my professor in Philosophy 101. Theseus' Ship is a paradox that questions whether an object which has had all of its component parts changed, is fundamentally the same object. Replacing one plank does not fit this in any way. |
You are correct, my memory is bad. I thought it was based on replacing one plank at a time, and at what point is it a new ship.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Even if you used this correctly, and likened a scientific theory to a Theseus' Paradox; if the theory had all of its component laws, methods, supporting experimentation, etc. changed, it would not be the same theory. |
Well again, I don’t care too much for the example, it was just something I threw out there to explain (badly as it turns out) what I was trying to say. When I wrote a paper on Theseus I approached it from the angle of what does changing 1 plank at a time do to the identity of the ship, which is how I ended up remembering the dilemma. The theory of evolution has been expanded and amended plenty of times, but that hasn’t made it into a completely new theory. Just an improved theory which describes the same things in more detail/higher level of accuracy. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
And you’ve repeatedly dodged the issue of working technology. How can something be disproven if the technology based upon it works?
|
I haven't dodged anything because I was never arguing that Relativity is wrong. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.
The only thing that I've been arguing is that it is possible that at some point in the future, a better theory may be adopted, replacing (or amending) the current Theory of Relativity. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
They started bringing philosophical bollocks into the thread, so I figured a philosophical analogy, Theseus’ Ship, was relevant. But, since you’re apparently Mr Science, I would welcome your input into the discussion. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Intelligent Design, huh. That is bull. Why is there any need for a long 11 page thread when those 3 words say everything relevant already.
|
That is my input on topic.
Apart from that I've stated repeatedly how stupid I find the argument "Newton was proven wrong by relativity, so everything we consider true today might also be completely wrong and instead [insert retarded bull here] might turn out to be true after all".
And not only every scientist but surely everyone who is capable of logical thinking knows what a scientific theory is and how science should work. The scientific method needs no philosophical discussion. People who bring philosophy into science are either self-important philosophers who want to sound clever and important and pretend they made an essential contribution to scientific advances, when in reality their "contribution" is spitting out nice sounding words for lack of any productive input. The other group are people who what to challange or discuss some scientific knowledge but have no ing clue, so they try to move the discussion towards philosophy, where they can conceal their lack of knowledge and pretend to say something relevant by making two coherent sentences that contain some words longer than 5 letters. Mostly they have no clue about philosophy either, but while you can easily detect bull in science, everyone can pretend to know a few things about philosophy. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
That is my input on topic.
Apart from that I've stated repeatedly how stupid I find the argument "Newton was proven wrong by relativity, so everything we consider true today might also be completely wrong and instead [insert retarded bull here] might turn out to be true after all".
And not only every scientist but surely everyone who is capable of logical thinking knows what a scientific theory is and how science should work. The scientific method needs to philosophical discussion. People who bring philosophy into science are either self-important philosophers who want to sound clever and important and pretend they made an essential contribution to scientific advances, when in reality their "contribution" is spitting out nice sounding words for lack of any productive input. The other group are people who what to challange or discuss some scientific knowledge but have no ing clue, so they try to move the discussion towards philosophy, where they can conceal their lack of knowledge and pretend to say something relevant by making two coherent sentences that contain some words longer than 5 letters. Mostly the have no clue about philosophy either, but while you can easily detect bull in science, everyone can pretend to know a few things about philosophy. |
:stongue: 3> |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
That is my input on topic.
Apart from that I've stated repeatedly how stupid I find the argument "Newton was proven wrong by relativity, so everything we consider true today might also be completely wrong and instead [insert retarded bull here] might turn out to be true after all".
And not only every scientist but surely everyone who is capable of logical thinking knows what a scientific theory is and how science should work. The scientific method needs no philosophical discussion. People who bring philosophy into science are either self-important philosophers who want to sound clever and important and pretend they made an essential contribution to scientific advances, when in reality their "contribution" is spitting out nice sounding words for lack of any productive input. The other group are people who what to challange or discuss some scientific knowledge but have no ing clue, so they try to move the discussion towards philosophy, where they can conceal their lack of knowledge and pretend to say something relevant by making two coherent sentences that contain some words longer than 5 letters. Mostly they have no clue about philosophy either, but while you can easily detect bull in science, everyone can pretend to know a few things about philosophy. |
A true "science person's" insight. If that's all you think Philosophy is, and if that's all you think Philosophers do, you clearly know nothing about Philosophy at all. I can write a long paragraph about how all scientists are self-important egomaniacal bastards who have no ability to think outside of the realm of facts and figures, but I really don't care enough to at this point.
If you knew anything about Philosophy, you'd know the majority of it is centered around the idea of forming a rational argument to support ones ideas. What you just spewed there was not in any way a rational argument, and thus not even really worth considering to hold any value whatsoever.
If you have read anything written in this thread so far, you'd see that I never made any hint of an argument supporting Intelligent Design. I was simply pointing out that Scientific Theories do not equate to absolute truth, so as much as Christians can't prove the origins of the Universe, neither can Scientists (at this point). |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
A true "science person's" insight. If that's all you think Philosophy is, and if that's all you think Philosophers do, you clearly know nothing about Philosophy at all. I can write a long paragraph about how all scientists are self-important egomaniacal bastards who have no ability to think outside of the realm of facts and figures, but I really don't care enough to at this point.
If you knew anything about Philosophy, you'd know the majority of it is centered around the idea of forming a rational argument to support ones ideas. What you just spewed there was not in any way a rational argument, and thus not even really worth considering to hold any value whatsoever. |
Yeah, to hell with these stupid facts and figures that always get in the way of thinking. :p
Notice, however, that I did not talk about Philosophy in general but rather about people bringing philosophy into scientific discussions for certain dubious purposes.
And I never claimed you supported Intelligent Design and wasn't talking to / about you. Where did you get that from? I don't think that bad about Philosophy in general. It certainly has it's place, like in curly Brazilian heads, and I'm sure it can teach you a lot of valueable things. Like reading comprehension. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Yeah, to hell with these stupid facts and figures that always get in the way of thinking. :p
Notice, however, that I did not talk about Philosophy in general but rather about people bringing philosophy into scientific discussions for certain dubious purposes.
And I never claimed you supported Intelligent Design and wasn't talking to / about you. Where did you get that from? I don't think that bad about Philosophy in general. It certainly has it's place, like in curly Brazilian heads, and I'm sure it can teach you a lot of valueable things. Like reading comprehension. |
Right, and I wasn't bringing Philosophy into a scientific discussion, because this isn't a scientific discussion. Obviously "The tide comes in, the tide goes out, can't explain that" is utterly ridiculous, but until the Big Bang Theory can be proven to be true, scientists don't have a concrete explanation for the origins of the Universe either.
Trying to argue over something that can't be scientifically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt is a Philosophical debate, not a scientific one. If you want to make this a scientific discussion, then please show me, through the scientific method, how the Universe was created. I'd love to see it. But, thank you very much for your logical fallacy to round out your previous post ;)
I'll be the first to admit I don't have a Physical Science background (my degrees were in Philosophy, Psychology and Computer Science). So if it makes you feel better to know that you know more about science than me, and want to use that to belittle me or any contribution I make to a ing thread on the internet, please continue, because you're just making yourself look like a pompous ass. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
Sigh.
PKC is better at this. I can't be bothered. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Sigh.
PKC is better at this. I can't think of anything else clever to say. |
Fixed. |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
A true "science person's" insight. If that's all you think Philosophy is, and if that's all you think Philosophers do, you clearly know nothing about Philosophy at all. I can write a long paragraph about how all scientists are self-important egomaniacal bastards who have no ability to think outside of the realm of facts and figures, but I really don't care enough to at this point.
If you knew anything about Philosophy, you'd know the majority of it is centered around the idea of forming a rational argument to support ones ideas. What you just spewed there was not in any way a rational argument, and thus not even really worth considering to hold any value whatsoever.
If you have read anything written in this thread so far, you'd see that I never made any hint of an argument supporting Intelligent Design. I was simply pointing out that Scientific Theories do not equate to absolute truth, so as much as Christians can't prove the origins of the Universe, neither can Scientists (at this point). |
Rather than stick to your quasi-agnostic-nihilism, you'd be better off to side with the scientific realization via quantum mechanics that we're all essentially part of this petri dish of a universe, and being within the experiment, unable to view the universe objectively from the outside, there are truths and explanations that never can be known. See: the paradoxes surrounding electrons and their behavior. The uncertainty principle, the implications of the double-slit experiment, etc.
Philosophy was a great way for early thinkers to challenge convention and present novel explanations for existence, however its fair to assume that the majority of philosophical ideas and discussions that can be had, have been had, leaving us to ponder and regurgitate the notions thinkers before us spent their lives hammering out. Science, conversely, is dynamic and ever-changing. Ergo its purity and utility compared to philosophy. |
|
|
|
|
