Science and Religion meet here

1/3/04 9:32:13 PM

Re: Not every Christian is a fundamentalist

Advocating something that is demonstrably false is suicidal for the society. That should have ended with Galileo. If the creationists have their way, they will boil non-creationists in oil one day. Anyone who can allow himself to believe a demonstrable lie is a repressive monster waiting for his opportunity.

-drl

Post #133,487

by Ashton

1/4/04 5:54:22 AM

Amen, brother-- and with holy vestments and 'blessed' oil..

Post #134,096

by cwbrenn

1/7/04 12:42:17 PM

Stupidest thing I've read all year.

But the year is young.

"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young

Post #134,104

1/7/04 2:43:50 PM

Care to explain why?

The historical record bears out the premise that people who deliberately shut off the truth valve act like monsters.

-drl

Post #134,116

by a6l6e6x

1/7/04 4:02:35 PM

Or, in the words of Heinrich Heine:

Where they have burned books,
They will end in burning human beings.
\t\t

Alex

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. -- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US president

Post #133,441

1/3/04 10:09:25 PM

No, they do NOT meet here

It is clear from that response that you don't really understand what science is or how it works. Science is a process for producing a detailed (but always somewhat provisional) understanding of the world around us.

The fact that you happen to believe anything in particular does not give you the right to call it science. The phrase Christian Science is a contradiction in terms. Science progresses according to its own internal norms, and forms the body of claims that it does without respect for any given outside beliefs.

On the flip side, nobody has to accept anything that scientists currently think. That many do is a testament to the track record that science has accumulated. Of course you are free to bet against that track record all that you want. But insistence on the part of others that the current state of science should be honestly reported, even where you disagree with it, is not an issue of disrespecting you. It is an issue of showing respect for the integrity of the scientific process.

Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #133,581

by orion

1/4/04 8:52:10 PM

Yes indeed they do

need I pull out that website again:
[link|http://www.godandscience.org/|http://www.godandscience.org/]

It is called Intelligent Design, there is an intelligence behind evolution, the universe, and etc. The question remains, whose intelligence is it? Certainly not mine or yours.

Oh yes I do believe that God is behind evolution, the big bang, and almost everthing else. His figerprints are all over it. At least I and some others can see that.

Saying that there is definatly no God requires absolute knowledge. It is currently impossible to have absolute knowledge on such a concept. It is like saying there is no gold in China. Do you know this absolutely? Have you checked every possible area of China looking for gold? Or have you just searched few places, gave up, and said because of your findings that you found no gold in China? Just because you found no gold, doesn't mean that there is absolutly no gold in China. What if I found gold in China, would you accuse me of being a liar to prove your "fact" that you claim to have scientifically proven?

I think that the agnostics may be correct in the statement that it is impossible to know if God exists or not.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #133,651

1/5/04 11:38:12 AM

1/5/04 12:59:16 PM

Talk about rapidly changing your position

Your first post claimed that Creationism is where science and religion meet. Now you back off from that to claim that Intelligent Design (a much different position) is where they meet. You throw a huge website at me. And then you immediately go on to rail against people who say that there is definitely no God.

Let's take those one at a time, shall we?

You originally said that, Science and Religion meet here with Creationism. Creationism generally means something rather specific, it means the theory that God created the world exactly as outlined in the Bible, complete with The Flood, every surviving species surviving on Noah's Arc, etc just a few thousand years ago. You haven't defended that. The website that you pointed me at very specifically doesn't defend that view. They relabel it young-earth creationism and right [link|http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html|here] point out that you have to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism (science in quotes because what passes for science among young-earth creationists very definitely isn't).

Instead it defends the view of Intelligent Design. ID is the theory that evolution is broadly right, but there are gaps that can't be explained, and those gaps are filled in by God. Which gaps need filling in varies between different believers. For instance Michael Behe explicitly accepts macro-evolution as a process but sees God needed to fill in some of the steps along the way, such as abiogenesis, the evolution of eukaryotic cells, and the eye. The authors of the website that you pointed at doesn't accept basic macro-evolution.

What about the website that you pointed me at? Obviously I don't have time to review the whole thing in detail. So let me just grab one page and talk about that. How about [link|http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html|General Rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution]? Well first they draw a fairly artificial distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Secondly they accept micro-evolution (the actual process put forth by Darwin) but then reject that micro-evolution as a process could explain any larger transition from speciation on up.

Uh, oh. First factual mistake. That divisions between species can occur through a series of gradual changes is well-established. One of the most spectactular demonstrations are so-called [link|http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html|ring species]. In one place there are two species. But if you take one of them, and go from location to location you find that each interbreeds with the next until you reach the original location - at the other species! There you have what are clearly 2 species and a complete chain of intermediate forms in current existence!

We then have the classic out-of-context quote, this time directed at a 1996 article that I don't have access to. Obviously points of major change are not examples of equilibrium - had they been in equilibrium then change would not have happened. And the biologists in question were asserting their opinion that micro-evolution is not a sufficient mechanism for certain specific gaps (namely the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language), well OK, that is an opinion. Oh, right. The origin of life is indeed outside of standard mechanisms of Darwinian evolution (a fact first noted by Darwin). The emergence of eukaryotic cells (ie cells with organelles like mitochondria) is believed to have happened by the emergence of a symbiosis with one bacteria being engulfed by another. That process is indeed outside of simple Darwinian evolution. The origin of the human capacity for language, there is a point of disagreement. One biologist has trouble seeing how it could have happened through micro-evolution, others have no trouble with that, and with the sequencing of the human genome complete there is ongoing research on which genes differ between us and chimpanzees. I have confidence that in the next few decades we will have a pretty good idea which genes give us coherent speech (we already know a couple of key ones which most of us have, chimps don't, and which cause serious speech problems in people who lack them). Research continues.

Going on, they present gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium. The approach taken here is to give all of the traditional arguments that the punctuated equilibrium folks take against gradualism, and then casually dismiss punctuated equilibrium as impossible. They also provide a lack of context. For instance they discuss the amazing punctuation of the boundary of the Cretateous-Tertiary Period without mentioning the punctuation point, an asteriod hitting the Earth, wiping out most species, leaving a layer of dust around the world, and leaving a still-visible crater after over 60 million years. The destruction of an existing order created huge numbers of opportunities. The radiation out from there is quite understood.

I would comment on some of the misrepresentations that I see there (particularly of the Cambrian explosion), but I want to get to their casual dismissal of punctuated equilibrium. First of all they overstate the coincidence needed for punctuated equilibrium to happen. You do not need to isolate a population and then have a series of mutations happen. Instead you isolate a population with normal levels of genetic variability, and chance elimination of variability through inbreeding will drive that population to a somewhat different form. Normally that form won't be better than the original, and reintegration with the main population is a disaster for the isolated segment. But this kind of genetic experiment is going on all the time (and has been identified in the wild right now), and one success in 5 million years of attempts is enough to explain a punctuation.

Secondly when attempting to dismiss a theory, it is unfair to ignore evidence put forth for that theory. For instance Gould and Eldredge's original paper didn't just hypothesize the process, they actually traced a type of tribolite through 2 punctuations, in each of which they were able to locate the punctuations (one in a mine in upstate NY, the other in a mine in China IIRC) to a specific locale over a period of a few thousand years. That is, they didn't just look at a fossil record and say, "How did this sudden shift happen?" Instead they looked at a fossil record where they had detailed documentation of where and when the shifts happened, and found that not once, but twice in a row the shift happened in a small space in a small time in what apparently was an isolated population.

I could go on through that page with more examples of bias, distortion, and omission. I could do the same with the website as a whole. But I think that my point is clear. While I can see how convincing that site might be to someone who doesn't clearly know the facts involved, and who is inclined to believe what they have to say, it isn't convincing me nearly as well as you might hope.

So let me quickly brush over the final point, your railing about attempted proofs of the non-existence of God. Oddly enough I didn't attempt to prove the non-existence of God. For one thing I know better than that, I am fully aware that the existence or non-existence of God is not amenable to proof. Or, more precisely put, there are many "demonstrations" available, but each has a strong tendancy to confirm for all readers their prior belief system on the subject.

My prior belief system says that any God able to create the Universe must, a prior, be far more amazing than the Universe created. Going further, if we consider geological time to be The Eiffel Tower, all of human history is a small fleck of paint partway up the tower. The entire history of science fits on a speck of dust on the fleck of paint. And I am but an amused microbe who hears other microbes going on about how we are clearly the purpose of this whole edifice, what it all leads to, and I'm laughing to myself about the lack of perspective.

But that is my belief. I have no vested interest in anyone else (you, for instance) agreeing with me, and no way to convince you to agree with me even if I wanted to.

Cheers,
Ben

PS Next time, please pick a clearer position and stick to it. While addressing umpteen different positions may be kind of fun, it gets very tedious after a while.

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Edited by ben_tilly Jan. 5, 2004, 12:59:16 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #133,662

by admin

1/5/04 12:01:04 PM

Fix your ring species link, please.

Missing a |, looks like.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #134,005

by orion

1/7/04 1:48:00 AM

Not really

Creationism is the theory that the universe, and everything in it was created by a Creator who used Intelligent Design to create the various things. One of which was humans, which were created in his image. The problem is that the details are quite filled in yet, and some Creationists use the book of Genesis as a reference. That is where religion comes in. What I said was that parts of the creation stories in Genesis are true, and the rest are that old "Telephone Game" that distorts things. It still doesn't change the theory of Creationism. Unless you are mistaking the book of Genesis for the theory itself, which I think you are doing.

Oh, right. The origin of life is indeed outside of standard mechanisms of Darwinian evolution (a fact first noted by Darwin).

The origin of life is not outside the theory of Creationism. We know who did it, and we just don't know how or why yet. Provide an alternative to the origin of life if you can. Random Chance just doesn't cut it. Science is unable to reproduce the same results in a controlled environment. These failings show that there was actually some intellgence that provided the origin of life and did so by Intelligent Design. Otherwise scientists could reproduce life in a lab using Random Chance.

The fact that Scientists cannot sucessfully clone anything without it breaking down, aging rapidly, or dying, proves that there is copy protection in the Genetic Code. How did it get there? Why is it there? Not only is the copy protection there, it is signed by its creator by it's very design. The creator didn't want us to genetically copy species, at least not in an easy way.

So let me quickly brush over the final point, your railing about attempted proofs of the non-existence of God. Oddly enough I didn't attempt to prove the non-existence of God. For one thing I know better than that, I am fully aware that the existence or non-existence of God is not amenable to proof. Or, more precisely put, there are many "demonstrations" available, but each has a strong tendancy to confirm for all readers their prior belief system on the subject.

In order to prove or disprove the existance of God, you must define what God is. Nobody is qualified to do that. Like trying to define infinity and measure it with finite measuring devices. Nothing I can show in any evidence, in any proof, in any way shape or form will convince you, if you are a skeptic and totally against the idea and do not have an open mind. God goes beyond all logic, all physical laws, time and space itself are meaningless to such a being.

My prior belief system says that any God able to create the Universe must, a prior, be far more amazing than the Universe created. Going further, if we consider geological time to be The Eiffel Tower, all of human history is a small fleck of paint partway up the tower. The entire history of science fits on a speck of dust on the fleck of paint. And I am but an amused microbe who hears other microbes going on about how we are clearly the purpose of this whole edifice, what it all leads to, and I'm laughing to myself about the lack of perspective.

We could be all goldfish swimming in a big bowl, living in our own waste, realtively speaking. :) The whole purpose of the edifice is unknown. Life is only temporary and finite. 1000 years from now, what will it matter? Religion comes in and gives life a purpose. Suddenly the microbes are important, and find that death is not an end, but only the beginning to something different. The physical body gives way to the soul or spirit. Life continues on in the Afterlife in a different form. The edifice is replaced with something more wonderful, something much larger, no more suffering, no more death, life eternal. Then we find out that physical life as we knew it was one big test, either we pass or fail. The one who created life does the judging in the Afterlife. Hope you pass the audition. :)

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,112

1/7/04 3:11:01 PM

You can use whatever definition you want

But you can't expect people to understand what you mean, and you can't expect to understand others.

Let me look in a dictionary for [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=creationism|creationism]. I find that creationism is Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. I also see n. the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; I see other definitions which are clearly different contexts. Looking up the word "literal" and then reading the Bible explains why I said that Creationists believe that the world is a few thousand years old, Noah's Flood happened, etc.

Now you wish to use the word Creationism to mean something else. Fine. Now that we both know what the word means when you use it, there is no confusion between us. However unless you use it like most people do, you won't understand the start of the discussion and can't expect other people to understand you.

Moving on, I'm well aware that Divine Intervention can be used to "explain" anything. And in explaining any possible result, has very little explanatory value. So yes, your theory offers a simple solution for the origin of life. And no, the origin of life is outside of what "descent with modification" can explain. Furthermore your comments on what scientists can explain demonstrates your ignorance of science. Not that I am surprised. After all how would a person who has no idea about how cloning works understand the practical difficulties of doing it? Given your willful ignorance, is there any point in discussing what is and isn't believed about how abiogenesis could work?

Lemme scan further. Oh yes. You seem to think that I'm interested in trying to prove or disprove God. Which is rather silly when I've repeatedly pointed out that I have no interest in proving or disproving God, and in fact most attempts at demonstrations only have the effect of confirming people's prior beliefs in the matter. But you've been silly for another round, so I've just pointed it out again...

And now we have your view of religion. Norm, please learn that there are your beliefs and then there are facts. They are not one and the same. Yes, I understand your belief system. I don't accept or agree with it. And lecturing me on how I'd better watch out for how I'm going to be judged in the Afterlife just brings home how completely you Don't Get That.

Norm, can you please give me something which is worth responding to? So far you aren't, and if you don't soon then I'll exit this conversation since it is going around in circles.

Regards,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,432

by orion

1/8/04 11:33:30 PM

Let us just agree to disagree then.

Your facts are not the same as the facts I know. Arguing any futher would just be useless. End of discussion.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,439

by bepatient

1/9/04 1:32:26 AM

/me chuckles while pulling hair out

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

It goes in, it must come out._{Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #134,497

1/9/04 11:18:56 AM

Yes, we have passed the point of uselessness

Your facts are not the same as the facts I know.

And you have no interest in finding out which set of claimed facts is more accurate. I'll accept that. I have no choice, nobody else can make your brain do work that it doesn't want to do.

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #133,665

by pwhysall

1/5/04 12:23:46 PM

Norman...

...you wouldn't know what science was if the Science Bus ran you over.

I suggest you gracefully drop this subject, lest you look unnecessarily stupid.

Post #134,011

by orion

1/7/04 2:20:13 AM

Peter...

I must be making some sort of sense to make you want to post something like that.

Last I checked this wasn't the science forum, but it is a related topic to this thread. It is the combination of science and religion which apparently is beyond your grasp or anyone else's here.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,040

by pwhysall

1/7/04 7:28:30 AM

Riiiiiight.

It's not that you're talking a load of old toss, it's that everyone else doesn't "get it".

Glad we got that cleared up.

Post #134,041

1/7/04 7:31:50 AM

Re: Riiiiiight.

Interesting idiom "a load of old toss" - translate? There's a good chap.

-drl

Post #134,042

by pwhysall

1/7/04 7:34:35 AM

Re: Riiiiiight.

\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n

toss

Noun. 1. Rubbish, nonsense. E.g."That play was toss, we should have gone to the cinema instead."
\r\n\t2. An act of masturbation.
\r\n\tVerb. To masturbate.

\r\nSee [link|http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/t.htm|http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/t.htm]

Post #134,048

by orion

1/7/04 8:45:33 AM

It is because

there is a religous element to it. So it gets rejected and not understood by those opposed to it.

I just had one relative die, and now my wife has a relative die on her side of the family. Death is so much easier for me to take when I believe in an afterlife. I can see faith in action in the faces of relatives. I have a uncle who is near death, and he found that he has to take his faith more seriously now. The look on his face, the terror of dying, not knowing when it will happen, not knowing how to manage it. I cannot begin to describe it. He found God, and he thinks it may be too late, but I told him that God forgives. I always looked up to him, he always did the ethical and moral things. Ran a Haunted House on Halloween for MD out of his basement, etc. His faith is Jewish, mine is Catholic, but we agree on the concept of God. Me, I am not afraid of dying. I fear many things, but death is not one of them. He said in the past he could not even look someone in th eyes and say he believed in God, but now he can. The doctors didn't give him good chances, but he lived past Christmas, which was his goal. He says prayers are what did it, many people prayed for him. His survival cannot be explained scientifically.

If you don't believe, that is your problem and not mine. I cannot change your mind. Nor do I want or desire to. All I ask is the right to believe in what I believe. Call it toss if you want, I know otherwise.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,094

by boxley

1/7/04 12:35:46 PM

potential root cause is fear of death? Interesting

How much of this fear of the unknown causes your mental states?
thanx,
bill

stick a spork in it.

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #134,422

by orion

1/8/04 10:36:29 PM

Fear of the known

driving on highways scares me, as I could easily get into an accident and be all twisted up and messed up for life. Not die, but get so messed up that my life will suffer a great deal. I've seen the way other people drive and I've been in many accidents where I was a passinger. Even got trapped in a car and it lead to a fear of enclosed places.

Hard to say if this is unknown or known, you'd have to drive St. Louis highways to understand this fear. I've tried and been forced off into exit ramps, in other states doing that is against the traffic laws, but they do that a lot here.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,491

by boxley

1/9/04 10:31:33 AM

so fear is the main issue

I have driven around st louis as well as in the bronx and many other places. Perhaps fear is the basis of your illness, I dont know. Not trying to belittle you, fear can be a terrible enemy or a kindly friend.
thanx,
bill

stick a spork in it.

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #134,492

1/9/04 10:40:46 AM

"The Gift of Fear" is an interesting book.

[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440226198/102-6743024-5568945|The Gift of Fear] by Gavin de Becker at Amazon.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #134,523

by orion

1/9/04 12:45:23 PM

Perhaps it is part of the illness

it certainly stops me from doing certain things. The problem is me trying to get over those fears. So far I have been unable to do that, although I have tried.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,524

1/9/04 12:59:10 PM

Re: Perhaps it is part of the illness

What you describe is not fear, it is chickenshitness. Real fear happens when you are confronted by an actual situation that will hurt you bad. Since you don't know this, you've never experienced it. Indeed you probably build your life around avoiding it (understandable, since it is no fun).

Refusal to accept challenges is not fear, it is chickenshititude. Chickenshittitude can be overcome - fear is basic, like pleasure and love. You can face fear but you can't avoid it, and the longer you put it off, the more it will hurt when it arrives.

-drl

Post #134,527

by Nightowl

1/9/04 1:08:27 PM

You have no idea what you are talking about

Norman was almost killed once when he almost went off a cliff with a friend who had a diabetic attack while driving.

Get your facts before spouting, Ross.

You need to back off and let people alone that you don't like, and stop picking on them... and STOP following me around in here just to make smart-assed remarks.

Nightowl >8#

"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley

Post #134,529

1/9/04 1:13:24 PM

Re: You have no idea what you are talking about

I don't pick on people, and you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. I am telling Norm the truth. If he doesn't like driving, he can stay off the roads. Indeed the way he talks about it, he would be doing everyone else a favor if he did.

(FWIW, I was in a rather bad motorcycle crash. I got back on the horse because I can live with fear. Indeed I am living with it as I write this.)

-drl

Post #134,531

by Nightowl

1/9/04 1:19:00 PM

You clearly stated...

That Norm had not been through something like that that truly put his life in danger.

Rosee wrote:>>Real fear happens when you are confronted by an actual situation that will hurt you bad. Since you don't know this, you've never experienced it.<<

I clearly stated back that he has indeed.

As for not picking on me, what was the point then of going into the Q & A thread and simply screaming? I was having a reasonable, logical conversation with people about my car and you came in there and screamed for no explainable reason.

Grow up, Ross.

Nightowl >8#

Post #134,535

1/9/04 1:27:04 PM

Re: You clearly stated...

That is not fear, that is horror - an instantaneous reaction to a bad situation. Fear is the awareness of an inevitable coming unpleasantness and the intense desire to avoid it. Courage is the ability to live with fear.

As for the screaming, well, to put it plainly, you drive me up the wall most of the time. As Jung would say, we are "shadows" of each other.

-drl

Post #134,537

by Nightowl

1/9/04 1:31:13 PM

Well as Scott said in the Hardware forum

KNOCK IT OFF, ROSS!

Nightowl >8#

Post #134,534

by orion

1/9/04 1:24:29 PM

Not to mention

me being in many car accidents. I've almost died many times, and I am lucky to have survived, or even not been hurt. The fears are not groundless, but based on real events, real experiences.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,536

1/9/04 1:30:20 PM

Re: Not to mention

Well, then stay off the roads if you're that bad a driver, or stay out of cars altogether. Simple solution no? But I would say, fear is what my quad friend in Arizona faces every day when he has to take a shit.

-drl

Post #134,557

by boxley

1/9/04 2:31:16 PM

perhaps you need to take up driving in demolition derbies

I am not saying your fear is groundless, I am saying you need to learn to function in a competent manner while in a fearful state. Fear of driving is understandable. Driving in an event where the object is to crash as many people as you can while in a fearful state might assist you in learning to cope with fear and allow you to confront other parts of your life where you are fearful in a more confident manner without becoming the antinorm.
thanx,
Bill

stick a spork in it.

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #134,573

by orion

1/9/04 3:31:59 PM

You have a point

except that my fear is not about driving, but driving on the highway. I can drive on local roads just fine, and never had an accident while I was driving. All of my accidents happened when someone else was driving.

Getting over my fear of driving just to drive on local roads was a major step for me. Just ask Nightowl as she knew me before I drove on local roads.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #136,179

by lister

1/16/04 3:09:01 PM

Nah, I agree with Ross

I've been in a car crash that had a high probability of either killing me or paralyzing me. I was lucky enough to walk away with some deep cuts on my head, arms and legs requiring staples and stitches, glass in my eyes and the temporary loss of use of my left arm (about two months or so to regain nearly full strength.) I fought off passing out at the scene and had the mental wherewithal to check myself out physically to make sure I was going to be okay. I've had a few other near car accidents. I've had several bicycle crashes one a concussion that I blacked out from and later went to sleep at home with (didn't know that was a no-no) and several others that I nearly did a header into moving cars. I still drive, allow myself to be driven by others (someone else was driving in that car crash), still ride my bike, still rollerblade despite smashing my wrists during this past summer (very painful!)...

Grow a spine and some balls and just deal with things! It's amazing to see and read about people completely panicing in some situations, a lot of the time completely unjustified.

Quit whining and just deal with shit.

lister

Post #133,447

1/3/04 11:28:58 PM

Science and Religion don't intersect much.

It is Christian Science in a way, and needs faith in order to work.

That which needs faith isn't science, that which doesn't need faith isn't religion. As ways of thinking, the two do not intersect. As bodies of theories about the world, they tend to intersect only when religion is forced to adapt to the latest scientific discovery.

I would at least ask that it not be shot down because it involves God or a religion in order to work. I don't shoot down Evolution because it doesn't involve God,

I can't work that way. Anything that tries to be science is subject to review by anybody that wants to. Science works well exactly because it exposes things to review by hostile parties. A scientist is never allowed to say something is a matter of faith, and not open to review.

Jay

Post #133,453

1/3/04 11:57:04 PM

Re: Science and Religion don't intersect much.

However, it is damned mysterious why

Rmn = 0

is gravity

Fmn,n = 0

is light

Rmn = -8pi Tmn

is light making gravity etc. etc.

That it is possible to exactly model the workings of the world is an impenetrable mystery - right next to the question "why is there something instead of nothing?"

-drl

Post #133,582

by orion

1/4/04 8:55:49 PM

Oh yeah?

You need faith that infinity goes on forever, if you cannot see it, how can you believe it? If false, it is not infinity and is therefore finate. Can you measure it to prove it is infinite? If so, how? Some teacher told you that infinity goes on forever and you decided to accept that as a fact, despite that you can never prove it and must accept it by faith that what the teacher told you was true.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #133,592

1/4/04 10:01:06 PM

Still not getting it

You need faith that infinity goes on forever, if you cannot see it, how can you believe it?

I believe it only because a counter example hasn't been found yet. Or rather in this case a counter example that a particular thing that I thought was infinite was finite. "infinity" itself is a definition and remains valid even if no real thing maps to that definition.

The key difference here is that such a discovery would not threaten my world view. I have no faith that my understanding of the world is correct, only the experience that science has proven to be a very effective way of understanding it.

Even DeSitter's contention that science has faith that the universe is rationally understandable is not true for all scientist, nor myself. I believe that the universe is rationally understandable because I havn't encountered anything yet that has proven to be beyond understanding.

The closest I get to faith is the belief that it is better to believe that which is true then that which is false. But in the end that is nothing more then a reflection of the fact that I choose to try to understand the world around me. Doing so requires that I believe in that which is correct rather then that which is false.

As a side note, within the limits of what prove means, it is possible to prove that some things are infinite. Prove, in the strict sense that must be used here, does not mean that it is beyond error, only that nobody has found one yet.

Jay

Post #134,006

by orion

1/7/04 2:00:18 AM

No you are not getting it

how do you know absolutely what is true and correct? You don't. You've only seem parts of the bigger picture that you think are true and correct. You haven't seen the whole thing yet. Your observations may be flawed, you may lack the vision to see beyond what is there, you could be myoptic. What you think is true and correct, may not be absolutely true and correct. Gold in China theory again.

You make up your own reality, based on what you believe is true or correct. You are living in a fantasy of your own imagination, we all are.

Some things are not a True or False, but a Maybe or Null Set. You don't have enough information to tell. Instead of just black and white there are shades of gray and a full spectrum of color. Your binary thinking does not work in a universe of many numbered systems. Try to binary think and define love. Is it true or correct? Does love exist or is it just an halucination? Why do people do what they do when they experience love, if such a thing exists anyway? Try to create a formula to predict love. Try to catch it in a box. Bottle it up and sell it if you can. Those without love will pay a lot of money for it. :)

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,023

1/7/04 3:36:00 AM

Re: No you are not getting it

No you are not getting it how do you know absolutely what is true and correct? You don't.

Exactly. I never claimed to know absolutly what is true or what is false. All knowledge I possess is subject to error, because I am not 100% perfect. I can't even be 100% sure of my own existance, since my perception that I exist is subject to error.

What I'm wondering is what the point of this little excursion was. The rest of your post wanders off into the old "not being religious means your cold and mechanical" terrority.

You seem to be raising some sort of issue around my having faith in my own beliefs. But it's simply not true, all of my beliefs are provisional, any of them is subject to be wrong.

Some of those beliefs, such as my own existance, are of such nature that it would be absurd to deny them. But that is not the same as saying it's impossible.

Jay

Post #134,050

by orion

1/7/04 9:07:54 AM

You are getting some of it

Exactly. I never claimed to know absolutly what is true or what is false. All knowledge I possess is subject to error, because I am not 100% perfect. I can't even be 100% sure of my own existance, since my perception that I exist is subject to error.

Which was my point, we are all imperfect, and thus flawed. We have flawed observations and what is correct and true for one person may not be so for another.

What I'm wondering is what the point of this little excursion was. The rest of your post wanders off into the old "not being religious means your cold and mechanical" terrority.

Not my intention. My point was that the world, the very universe cannot be defined by true and false binary thinking. I am not sure where the cold and mechanical terrority comes from, sounds more like The Borg from Star Trek. Where everything is data or information and emotions and other things are irrelevant. Resistance is futile you will be assimilated. I do not see what that has to do with religion or lack thereof? I was just pointing out where that line of thinking is going.

You seem to be raising some sort of issue around my having faith in my own beliefs. But it's simply not true, all of my beliefs are provisional, any of them is subject to be wrong.

Some of those beliefs, such as my own existance, are of such nature that it would be absurd to deny them. But that is not the same as saying it's impossible.

Maybe you need to read up on the definition of faith:

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

Latin fidere, to trust. Do you trust those beliefs? If not, how can you call it faith? Look at definition 2, fits most religions not just Christian ones.

I find it funny that people can have faith in Darwinism, yet they find fault with people who have faith in yet another theory. Darwinism fits definition 3, something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Darwinism has become in a way, another religion. Why? Because it tries to explain where we came from and how we got here. The theory has not yet been proven, yet people have faith in it, and completly trust it to be true. Just beause it does not mention a creator, does not mean that a creator does not exist.

How can we play God or Creator when we are imperfect? Even if we learned every secret of the universe, including how to create universes and create life, can we play the role of God? I don't think so. Why? Because we are imperfect and flawed. We might create a universe with a planet like Earth, yet dinosaurs still exist. Or maybe life existed, but didn't get looked after and died really quick. Like the movie "Bruce Almighty" trying to play God isn't easy and work piles up quickly. Too many things to work on all at once and the human mind cannot handle it. Imaging having to listen to all those prayers, all the time. Imagine watching people die all the time, and get sick. Imagine trying to get people to love you or even believe in you when free will is being used. Heck, imagine trying to keep track of what every human does all the time, and having to judge them after they die. Not possible for the human mind.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,171

1/7/04 8:49:17 PM

Re: You are getting some of it

Which was my point, we are all imperfect, and thus flawed. We have flawed observations and what is correct and true for one person may not be so for another.

My counter points is that yes we are all imperfect, but that does not mean that truth is subjective. I think that their is a physical reality that exists independent of our beliefs about it. If I believe that ID is invalid and you think it is valid, one of us is wrong.

I am not sure where the cold and mechanical terrority comes from, sounds more like The Borg from Star Trek.

It's a common tactic used against atheists to accuse them of being cold and mechanical, as opposed to the warmth and kindness of religious people.

Latin fidere, to trust. Do you trust those beliefs? If not, how can you call it faith? Look at definition 2, fits most religions not just Christian ones.

Now your playing definitional games. To say that the belief I put in things that are correct is the same as the faith a Christian puts in Jesus is an abuse of the language. My beliefs can be counted under faith only under a narrow reading of the 3rd defintion, yet your religious beliefs clearly fall into the 2nd defintion.

My "faith" that gravity pulls objects is very different then your "faith" in Jesus. Every time I let go of my pen while holding it above my desk to fall down till it hits the desk, every time, 100%, I have never seen it do anything else. Over my life I have seen so much evidence of gravity that to deny it would be absurd. I have yet to see one bit of evidence that Jesus was the son of God. To claim that "faith" in one is the same as "faith" in the other is idiotic.

Darwinism has become in a way, another religion. Why? Because it tries to explain where we came from and how we got here. The theory has not yet been proven, yet people have faith in it, and completly trust it to be true. Just beause it does not mention a creator, does not mean that a creator does not exist.

Depends on what you mean by "proven", and what you are refering to as "Darwinism." If you mean the theory of evolution, exactly as presented by Darwin, then it has actually be refuted. The theory has been updated over the years to fix various problems and improve it's mathmatical precision. If you mean the general theory of evolution via modified decent, then it is as proven as anything ever gets.

If by "completly trust it to be true" in the sense of absolute faith that the theory is correct and will never be changed or updated, then no people don't hold that. If you mean that there is a huge amount of evidence for the general principle and no evidence against it, then yes people do place great trust in it.

The basic problem here is that you trying to apply the word "prove" in the a mathmatical proof sense of the word to a physical science where it doesn't apply. Physical sciences don't "prove" things in that sense of the word, theories don't go through some set of tests and are then declared "proven." They are always theories, they where theories when they where concieved and they will be theories when they are replaced by other theories.

How can we play God or Creator when we are imperfect? Even if we learned every secret of the universe, including how to create universes and create life, can we play the role of God? I don't think so. Why? Because we are imperfect and flawed. We might create a universe with a planet like Earth, yet dinosaurs still exist. Or maybe life existed, but didn't get looked after and died really quick. Like the movie "Bruce Almighty" trying to play God isn't easy and work piles up quickly. Too many things to work on all at once and the human mind cannot handle it. Imaging having to listen to all those prayers, all the time. Imagine watching people die all the time, and get sick. Imagine trying to get people to love you or even believe in you when free will is being used. Heck, imagine trying to keep track of what every human does all the time, and having to judge them after they die. Not possible for the human mind.

You are still confusing different meanings of the god concept here. The creators of ID don't have to do any of those things, ID says nothing about the nature of the creators. The creators of ID don't have to be gods in the religious sense, let along God in the Christian sense.

At least in theory. In practice ID is nothing more then Creationism with the overtly religious components removed. I suspect part of the reason you are confused over this is that ID people tend to put on different faces when facing scientists and when giving a talk at a church. Several of them have been caught admiting that the purpose of ID is to get the Christian religion back in school.

Jay

Post #134,433

by orion

1/9/04 12:02:38 AM

One more time with feeling

Maybe a better web site would be:
[link|http://www.tsoup.org/id1.php|http://www.tsoup.org/id1.php]

Information is processed in the mind and patterns are recognized, applied, and created without our scarcely even thinking about it. When we see a pattern, though, we do not always attribute the results to the work of an intelligent agent. We see constellations in the sky, but if we scrambled all the stars in the heavens into a new configuration, we would find new constellations. If we came upon a table, with Scrabble tiles strewn all over it in no apparent order, we would likely say that they were dumped on the table and chance or natural forces determined their placement. But, if there was a sentence spelled out, such as "pick the kids up from soccer", you might conclude that your spouse was trying to tell you something. Rather than random forces controlling the placement of the tiles, an intelligent agent created information. A quick definition of information is necessary to carry this further.

Feel free to read the rest if you must.

[link|http://www.tsoup.org/id2.php|http://www.tsoup.org/id2.php]

Ernst Haeckel was a 19th Century German embryologist upon whom Darwin relied heavily for support of his theory of evolution. Haeckel composed a series of drawings supposedly depicting the development of embryos from
From left to right: fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit, and human.
many different species. His drawings showed that embryonic development was similar for these species during early and middle stages, becoming different only when the embryos were in the latter stages of growth. This particular characteristic of embryos is important support for Darwin's theory because they seem to indicate a common single progenitor. He argued that since humans were so similar to other species during early development that their common ancestry was obvious.1

However, for over a century, biologists have known that Haeckel faked his drawings. Wells writes, "vertebrate embryos never look as similiar as [Haeckel] made them out to be."2 During his lifetime, Haeckel was hounded by claims of scientific falsification. Whether or not he deliberately falsified his data was never fully established, but his drawings show embryos that are not only simliar, but too similiar. In addition, his drawings show a highly biased sample of vertebrate forms. First, he shows only five of the seven classes of vertebrates. The mammals he chooses to show (half of his drawings) are all from the same order of placentals. He also selected the salamander to represent amphibians, as opposed to a frog, which is very different developmentally.3

How about that? Can you trust something based on false findings? I certainly cannot.

If I believe that ID is invalid and you think it is valid, one of us is wrong.

How do we determine which one is wrong? Can I use the above example of the false findings that Darwin based his theory on? Would that help?

It's a common tactic used against atheists to accuse them of being cold and mechanical, as opposed to the warmth and kindness of religious people.

Once again I did not say that, and if you got that impression it was unintentional. If you keep putting words in my mouth, this discussion will end.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,445

1/9/04 2:32:54 AM

Re: One more time with feeling

How about that? Can you trust something based on false findings? I certainly cannot.

The whole Haeckel thing is a red herring. The underlying information that is revelent to Evolutionary theory is correct, despite Haeckel's exaggeration of features in the drawings to make them conform better to his own non-Darwinin theory.

The important part, that embryo growth shows various structural forms and changes that reflect evolution is true. This has been extensivly studied since Haeckel's time, and it does support evolution.

That Haeckel's drawings still turn up sometimes in school books is a reflection of how bad the process for making them is, not a reflection of Evolutionary theory.

If I believe that ID is invalid and you think it is valid, one of us is wrong.

How do we determine which one is wrong? Can I use the above example of the false findings that Darwin based his theory on? Would that help?

Your on roughly the right track, but as I pointed out above the Haeckel story doesn't hold up. It would also be helpful is you spelled out exactly what you do believe, since it seems to me to be a blending of Creationism and ID. Also, keep in mind that you need to make your case in a positive way, it not enough to show that Evolution is wrong, you have to show that your theory is right.

Jay

Post #134,532

by orion

1/9/04 1:20:37 PM

Some more information

A book that was written at Amazon:
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801064430/qid=1073672003/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2675730-7780050?v=glance&s=books|http://www.amazon.co...?v=glance&s=books]

A review of it:

Doubts about Darwin is a very objective book about the Intelligent Design Movement (ID). This work, a revision of the author's Ph.D. thesis completed at the University of South Florida, has much information that is not commonly known, such as many of the forerunners of the ID movement were atheists or agnostics. For example, the role of such people as Murray Eden (professor emeritus at MIT) and other ID forerunners such as Professor Michael Denton (p. 24) are discussed. Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96). This is hardly the attitude of an objective scientist intent on searching for the truth about origins. Woodward, a college professor himself, documents the many unethical attacks by the so called science and university establishment against those who dare to question Darwin. Rarely are Darwin doubters given an opportunity to respond to attacks against them in the journals that published the attacks and, thus, few people have an objective understanding of the movement. Reading sections of this book at times made me ashamed to be a scientist. Woodward does note that many scientists have been objective and fair critics, even supportive of ID, such as University of Chicago Professor David Raup (I was a fan of his work long before I learned about his positive contribution's to ID). The book also tries to answer questions such as, why more and more people are having serious doubts about Darwinism, who they are, and why the ID movement is growing so fast. The motive for the growth of ID is clearly major "doubts about Darwinism" and the book covers these in some detail. Now what is needed is an objective book on ID by a professional historian.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,592

1/9/04 4:23:35 PM

What was the point of that?

Your pointing to a review of a book on Amazon as evidence?

The book you are pointing to is not even a book of ID theory, it is a history of the ID movement by a follower of the movement.

Jay

Post #134,714

by orion

1/10/04 1:05:16 PM

The point was

to explain where ID came from. To dispell the myth that it was created by Christians to get Creationism back in schools. If Atheists and Agnostics worked on the theory, then that myth gets busted.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,782

1/10/04 10:21:24 PM

Re: The point was

Not being able to read the book, I can't see if there is any real connection there or not. There is nothing in what I have seen about the book that says if covers the poltical background of the movement or not.

Just reading the review I found one outright falsehood already.

Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96).

Phillip Johnson, the effective founder of the ID movement and the person that coined the ID name is a Creationist, by any defintion of the word. He believes that the Christian God created the universe and guided the creation of the species on earth. To try and claim he is not is absurd.

As for the "I've got to stop" quote, the second part is pure slander, designed to imply that Gould would lie or cheat when there is no reason to think that Gould considered either. As a pro-evolution scientist and an activist in the area of increasing the quality of school biology education, Gould did want to stop creationists like Johnson from getting their material in school books. It didn't help that Gould disliked Johnson for misquoting him in Johnson's books.

A good deconstruction of Johnson's first book can be found here [link|http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html|TalkDesign.org]. I can't find any discussion of the Doubts About Darwin book itself, being too new to have been really critiqued.

Jay

Post #134,855

by orion

1/11/04 2:37:38 PM

Apparently you missed part of that review quote

Here let me show it to you:

Reviewer: A reader from Middle America
Doubts about Darwin is a very objective book about the Intelligent Design Movement (ID). This work, a revision of the author's Ph.D. thesis completed at the University of South Florida, has much information that is not commonly known, such as many of the forerunners of the ID movement were atheists or agnostics. For example, the role of such people as Murray Eden (professor emeritus at MIT) and other ID forerunners such as Professor Michael Denton (p. 24) are discussed. Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96). This is hardly the attitude of an objective scientist intent on searching for the truth about origins.

Obviously you read the part about forerunners of the ID movement being atheists or agnostics. Maybe you forgot it and focused on the "I've got to stop your work" part? Only way to know for sure is to read that book.

Woodward, a college professor himself, documents the many unethical attacks by the so called science and university establishment against those who dare to question Darwin. Rarely are Darwin doubters given an opportunity to respond to attacks against them in the journals that published the attacks and, thus, few people have an objective understanding of the movement. Reading sections of this book at times made me ashamed to be a scientist. Woodward does note that many scientists have been objective and fair critics, even supportive of ID, such as University of Chicago Professor David Raup (I was a fan of his work long before I learned about his positive contribution's to ID). The book also tries to answer questions such as, why more and more people are having serious doubts about Darwinism, who they are, and why the ID movement is growing so fast. The motive for the growth of ID is clearly major "doubts about Darwinism" and the book covers these in some detail. Now what is needed is an objective book on ID by a professional historian.

It documents the many attacks on the ID movement. Again I guess you need to read the book to learn what they are.

If I wasn't so poor, I'd pay the $13.99USD to buy a copy and read it. I'd like to learn more myself. See what parts I can follow and understand.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,920

1/12/04 12:21:32 AM

"Were atheists" ne "are atheists"

My experience is that people who have changed belief systems tend to be far more aggressive about it than those who haven't. When I spent time on atheist newsgroups, the ones who had grown up fundamentalist christian were by far the most radical. Looking the other way, you don't have to look farther than C.S. Lewis to see what a Christian who used to be an atheist acts like.

People with a memory of IWETHEY history can just remember Ben Kosse and Nick Petreley to see examples each way of this, with each having made the opposite transition in beliefs.

Therefore the revelation that key members of the ID movement were once atheists doesn't surprise me. I'd have expected that. Doubly so since acceptance of a personally acceptable compromise between existing scientific evidence and their developing religious faith could well have been a key part of converting for them.

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #135,075

1/12/04 3:19:08 PM

I saw that

Obviously you read the part about forerunners of the ID movement being atheists or agnostics.

I saw that part, I just didn't read that much into it. Forerunners covers a lot of ground beyond those that actually founded the ID movement.

Jay

Post #134,496

1/9/04 11:16:38 AM

Ah, yes

First the obligatory bad statistics link. Where we demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between likelyhood in a directed stochastic process and likelyhood in a set of independent coincidences. (Hint: The probability calculations offered aren't even close to being correct.)

Second a link asserting that Darwin based his conclusions on misinformation. Now it is true that Ernst Haeckel screwed up, and it's also true that the process for making textbooks sucks - textbook authors crib liberally from each other without enough reference to the literature. Furthermore in Darwin's attempt to pull in as many lines of evidence as he could, he did pull in misinformation. I can also cite examples in Darwin's work of outright mistakes and racist arguments.

But the scientific literature works differently than textbook portrayals, and a consensus around Darwinian evolution didn't come from Darwin's evidence. If it was so simple then a consensus could have coalesced around Darwin in his own day and never been challenged. But it was challenged, and Darwin wasn't even alive when the successful resolutions to issues raised finally made the case solid.

Of course the scientific community became solidly behind evolution before the famous peppered moth experiments. Which I'd admit had flaws. They showed something, but that something isn't necessarily what the researchers thought that it showed. But no matter how widely quoted the peppered moth experiment is, it never was a key support for the theory of evolution.

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,525

by orion

1/9/04 1:06:51 PM

It shows an example

of how messed up things are in the early process of the theory of evolution. It is as bad as a Police Officer planting evidence to frame someone. It goes beyond making mistakes and using misinformation, it shows that they would do almost anything to support the theory. This in my opinion is not scientific and it is a shame. How do we know the same things didn't happen in the modern version of the theory of evolution? Maybe they are better at hiding mistakes and covering up misinformation?

You see the very fact that early on, the theory of evolution was based on false information throws me off of it. I just cannot trust something that we were lied to about. While it may be a theory, it certainly has a shady past.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,582

1/9/04 3:57:38 PM

You need some perspective

First of all people strongly tend to see what they expect to see. For instance in Galileo's research on pendulums he saw a relationship between the length of the pendulum and the period of the swing (true). He also thought that he saw that the period of the swing didn't vary no matter how far you drew it back (false). It is true that he didn't have good ways of tracking time. It is true that the period changes very little over a pretty wide range. But the simple test of taking 2 identical pendulums, and drawing one back much farther than the other, would show him his mistake.

Perhaps he didn't run that test. Perhaps he ran it while holding the pendulum and unconcious movements of his arm compensated. Perhaps he saw small differences and put them down to experimental error. I don't know. But Galileo expected to find universal periodicities, and Galileo found more periodicities than were actually there.

This kind of systematic bias towards seeing what you expect to is a difficult problem to deal with. And science has been dealing with it for a very long time. There are methods and techniques which can reduce the odds of making this error, and which will lead to it being caught if it is made. They aren't perfect - nothing designed and done by fallible humans can be - but they are pretty good. One of them is the ongoing external peer review and challenge process. Another is the tradition in science of constantly trying to challenge your own theories, not support them. And not inconsequential is the simple fact that every scientist knows stories of scientists who got it wrong, and there is pressure not to become another one of them.

Furthermore I should not that it is rare to find that systematic mistakes happen through intentional dishonesty. It happens through how our basic perception process works. There is a striking experiment demonstrating the percepction issue that Kuhn quoted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. People were asked to call out cards as they were flashed by. They had to give the color, name and suit. Unbeknownst to the subjects, among the cards were some "impossible" ones. Like a black jack of hearts. When the cards went by fast people would have no problem calling them out - as something that they weren't. So one person might call out a red jack of hearts, another a black jack of spades. As you slowed down, people continued to get it wrong until finally you did it slowly enough that most were able to see the card for what it was. Once people realized that there were impossible cards, they had no problem identifying them, even at speed.

I should say most people. There were some subjects who could not see the cards clearly no matter how much time you gave them. As one woman said after 15 seconds of studying the card, "I can't believe my eyes. I can't tell you if this card is red or black or a heart or a spade. I feel like I'm going crazy!"

This isn't dishonesty, it is an optical illusion created by having strong expectations. Everyone is prey to it, not just scientists. The problem for scientists is how to proceed despite the problem.

What does this have to do with Ernst Haeckel? Well Haeckel believed that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". That is, the development process records the history of your ancestry in a compressed form. This expectation lead him to misperceive what he saw, and so he drew bad slides. He becomes a morality story.

What does this have to do with Charles Darwin? Well Darwin wanted evidence that animals have common ancestors. At that point a commonly cited piece of evidence was Haeckel's observations, so Darwin cited it without sufficient research. Oops. However that argument was not a major part of Darwin's book, which was mostly devoted to how our current variety of forms of life could result from descent with modification. Indeed in any book of that size, you have to expect to see errors. The work, taken as a whole, was solid, and in the end was confirmed, so Darwin became a success story.

If you are curious for more, you can actually read a fairly early edition of [link|http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/|The Origin of Species] for yourself. Read it for yourself. See how long it takes you to find Haeckel's observations. But as you do so, don't miss chapter 6, where Darwin lists all of the objections that he thought of to his own theory. In later editions he also added objections that were suggested to him by readers. It is integral to the scientific process that you be honest to the best of your abilities, and Darwin did that.

Of course he has mistakes. He included other people's work which had errors. He guessed wrong (for instance in chapter 6 he is right that swimbladders and lungs are related, but he is wrong about which way evolution went - swimbladders are modified lungs, not vice versa). He had incomplete information. He believed wrong theories about how inheritance works. He was prey to assumptions of his day (one possible problem included in later editions was about the dilution of superior traits if a single superior specimen bred with inferior ones - Darwin accepted without comment that whites were clearly superior to blacks). And so on.

But Darwin does his best. And despite all the flaws that we can see from nearly 150 years of improved perspective, Darwin's best was still very good.

And of course, as I've pointed out and you don't seem to appreciate, the history isn't that Darwin came out with his book and everyone said, "Oh, so that is the new scientific theory, better burn the old stuff." No. What happened instead was that people piled on. They found problems with missing gaps. Others filled them in. Kelvin showed that the Earth couldn't been around for long enough. Later Kelvin was proven wrong. (An illustration of good science at work, Kelvin included in possible objections to his work the possibility of sources of heat then unknown to science - which turned out to be the case.) Geneticists demonstrated that species seemed to have a natural form that was always easiest to breed them to. The role of genetic diversity in adaption was figured out, and the genetics results were reinterpreted. And so on.

50 years after Darwin's seminal work, descent with modification was still not solidly accepted. After 60 years of the scientific process grinding away, it was. And the general outlines have not been seriously challenged since. (Although our understanding of modes and means have been.)

Of course you aren't interested in this. You are interested in supporting the conclusion that you already have. So Darwin accidentally includes one line of evidence from someone whose results are suspect, and Darwin is a deliberate liar, who is planting evidence to support his theory.

All that I can say to that is that we often ascribe our own motives to others...

Regards,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,588

1/9/04 4:12:45 PM

excellent +10

Kepler of course tried to match the planets to the Platonic solids. This did not prevent him from eventually getting it right. That is the hardest thing to do - to quit on a pet idea.

Darwin's achievement is all the more remarkable because at the time, there wasn't even a good understanding of atoms, much less DNA. There was no mechanism for inheritance, and Darwin probably did not even understand the significance of Mendel (no one did at first), if indeed he knew about Mendel's work at all. (Mendel's initial work on hybrids was published in 1865 - same year as Maxwell :) This I think is the mark of real genius - the ability to grasp intuitively something that only much later finds a satisfactory explanation. In Darwin's case it was 90 years in the future. Darwin always reminds me of Kepler.

-drl

Post #134,687

by Ashton

1/10/04 7:10:52 AM

And that is a decently compact one.

(The lazy reader may not investigate stochastic methods re random events, nor recognize that very often, er non-probabilistic sampling is apt to become intermixed either subtly or nefariously -- as in the strongly-human tendency to weight.. intuition? or just a one's own lengthy career experience, etc.)

WTF - good science is Hard. We live in a Soft, lazy time. What was that Econ quote re rising expectations in a * prosperous society VS diminished presence of the capable?

* or faux-prosperous, like this one. Prosperous for a diminishing few..

Nice work; pearls before ..
but others read too.

Ashton

Post #134,713

by orion

1/10/04 1:02:36 PM

More suspect evidence

This one appeared in a copy of Scientific American. Claimed to prove that things can be created randomly:

THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN APPENDIX E IN "UPON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS" BY

RICHARD HARDISON

10 REM 1984 R. HARDISON

11 PRINT "RANDOMIZING ALPHABET"

12 PRINT "WRITE HAMLET, KEEPING"

13 PRINT "SUCCESSES."

14 PRINT :; REM N-COUNTER: # OF TRIALS

15 REM T=COUNTER:REUSE "TO BE"

16 PRINT "SUBROUTINE TO

17 PRINT "RANDOMIZE AND SELECT"

18 PRINT "LETTER"

30 N = 0

40 FOR G = 1 TO 10

50 T = 0

60 GOTO 80

70 X = INT (26 * RND (1)) + 1: RETURN

80 GOSUB 70

90 N = N + 1

100 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T": IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 120

110 GOTO 60

120 N = N + 1

130 GOSUB 70

140 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN PRINT : IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 160

150 GOTO 120

160 N = N + 1

170 GOSUB 70

180 IF X = 2 THEN PRINT "B": IF X = 2 THEN GOTO 200

190 GOTO 160

200 N = N + 1

210 GOSUB 70

220 IF X = 5 THEN PRINT "E": IF X = 5 THEN PRINT : IF X = 5 THEN GOTO 240

230 GOTO 200

240 T = T + 1

250 IF T = 2 THEN GOTO 460

260 N = N + 1

270 GOSUB 70

280 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 300

290 GOTO 260

300 N = N + 1

310 GOSUB 70

320 IF X = 18 THEN PRINT "R": IF X = 18 THEN GOTO 340

330 GOTO 300

340 N = N + 1

350 GOSUB 70

360 IF X = 14 THEN PRINT "N": IF X = 14 THEN GOTO 380

370 GOTO 340

380 N = N + 1

390 GOSUB 70

400 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 420

410 GOTO 380

420 N = N + 1

430 GOSUB 70

440 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T": IF X = 20 THEN PRINT : IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 60

450 GOTO 420

460 PRINT "N=";N;" KEYS PRESSED TO WRITE 'TO BE OR NOT TO BE'"

470 PRINT "FOR";G;" RUN(S) OF PROGRAM"

480 PRINT

490 NEXT G

500 END

510 REM IF THE PROGRAM WERE

511 REM WRITTEN TO INCLUDE

512 REM PUNCTUATION MARKS ETC.

513 REM THE PROGRAM WOULD

514 REM TAKE LONGER, BUT WOULD

515 REM STILL NOT BE PROHIBI-

516 REM TIVE

517 PRINT

518 PRINT "WITH 3000 RUNS, THE MEAN"

519 PRINT "# of trials=333"

520 PRINT "THE MEAN TIME REQUIRED"

521 PRINT "WAS .14 MINUTES TO PRINT"

522 PRINT "TOBEORNOTTOBE"

-------------------------------

You can plainly see that instead of randomly creating letters, it goes through many loops of creating random numbers, and if the right number is randomly chosen then the next letter of the phrase "TOBEORNOTTOBE" is selected. If not, the loop continues generating random numbers. It does not start over the whole selection but gosubs to the start where the random number is selected and returns to the calling point, it continues on to the last step if the wrong number is selected. It does not start over from the start if the wrong number is found. Obviously a flawed experiment, also not a true random number generator but as close as MS BASIC can get to it. Eventually the right number will be selected and the loop moves on to the next part. Also not even close to how complex the genetic code is.

Perhaps, it is, as you said, a mistake, full of errors, flawed. Yet it still does not explain why people see it as a fact or true evidence supporting the random creation of life.

Yes people make mistakes, make errors, base things on flawed observations. Trying to pass off said things as actual facts or true statements is just plain wrong. Nothing I have read on the theory of evolution has convinced me yet that it is anything more than just a theory.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,728

1/10/04 2:22:39 PM

Talk about missing the point

The purpose of that program isn't to provide evidence for or against evolution. It is to give people some intuition for how much more likely things are to happen in a stochastic process than with independent events. What averaged 333 trials there would take an average of about 2_481_152_873_203_736_576 trials if you just kept on grabbing sets of 13 random letters until you came up with TOBEORNOTTOBE. (The theoretical arithmetic average for the program that you ran is 338. The theoretical mean is slightly lower because of an asymmetry of the tails, but I don't care enough to work it out exactly.)

Of course the real-life stochastic processes of interest to abiogenesis and evolution bear no resemblance to that simple program. However the probability arguments that you hear from both Creationists and ID folks always are the ones appropriate to independent events, which wrongly results in astoundingly large numbers.

If either Creationists or ID folks tried to work like scientists push themselves to, then they would acknowledge that they don't know what correlations exist, and they would admit that such correlations could drastically change the figures that they quote. But they don't do so because, unlike science, their goal is to convince people of a position that they believe, and not to uncover reality, whether or not it matches current preconceptions.

Incidentally the intent of that little program backfired with you because you both didn't learn the statistical point that it was meant to illustrate, and because you mistakenly thought that it was seriously intended as proof that evolution has happened. So you missed the point made, and then got to complain about the point that wasn't made.

Regards,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,735

by orion

1/10/04 3:21:22 PM

I was presented it as

evidence that evolution is true and that random chance created life. There was no talk of statistics from them. I only showed it that it was not evidence of evolution, and was written wrongly. The people trying to convince me that it is evidence of evulotion are wrong.

I didn't take it as serious evidence of evolution, I knew it was flawed.

Of course the real-life stochastic processes of interest to abiogenesis and evolution bear no resemblance to that simple program.

All the more point that the program in question has no basis in real life.

If either Creationists or ID folks tried to work like scientists push themselves to, then they would acknowledge that they don't know what correlations exist, and they would admit that such correlations could drastically change the figures that they quote. But they don't do so because, unlike science, their goal is to convince people of a position that they believe, and not to uncover reality, whether or not it matches current preconceptions.

Yet another myth or opinion. You keep talking about facts, yet use things like these that pretend to be facts. I do not see a reason why I should continue this conversation if you keep spouting out myths and opinions like that and try to pass them off as facts.

Incidentally the intent of that little program backfired with you because you both didn't learn the statistical point that it was meant to illustrate, and because you mistakenly thought that it was seriously intended as proof that evolution has happened. So you missed the point made, and then got to complain about the point that wasn't made.

I only approached it from the evidence of evolution angle that it was presented as. I understand that there is a statistic and probability aspect to it, but this was not covered by those who presented the program to me. I was told it was evidence, and I went to prove that it is not evidence. Wether there was a point to the program besides being evidence is a moot issue. I do not recall saying that there is no point to the program, only that it is not evidence of evolution randomly creating life. So please stop putting words in my mouth/posts. Another annoying habit I wish you'd quit doing.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,743

1/10/04 4:03:38 PM

What is that about motes vs beams?

If you want to talk about annoying habits, why not work on the following ones of yours as well?

You consistently ignore virtually anything that you don't want to respond to. At least acknowledging it would be nice.
You keep on bringing up strawmen whose only apparent purpose is to provide you with something that you can shoot down.
You are far too quick to dismiss things as just myth or opinion. For instance go [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=134582|here] and verify that I didn't just claim that scientists try to bring up possible flaws in their reasoning, but I explained why and gave concrete examples (Darwin and Kelvin). I even included a link to Darwin's original book and pointed out that there is an entire chapter whose purpose is to enumerate major possible flaws in Darwin's thinking.

It would also be nice if you would fairly acknowledge points where you were unfair. Allow me to demonstrate what that could look like.

I acknowledge that I don't know how the program was presented to you. I know what it is supposed to show, and I know how that integrates into the theory of evolution. But the misunderstanding in your presentation of it well have been a misunderstanding of the person presenting it to you, and not your misunderstanding of what they said. It was unfair for me to suggest otherwise.

Incidentally I mean that apology. I was unfair. I can excuse my behaviour in various ways,

Regards,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,761

by orion

1/10/04 5:36:48 PM

The truth is

I do not have the education to grasp advanced concepts in Biology and Genetics that are of the college level. I am not ignoring them, I am unable to verify them as facts because I am not qualified to do so. How can I acknowledge something I cannot understand or verfiy? I am also not qualfied to prove or disprove either ID or Evolution, so asking me to do so is unfair. I try, but my education in the subjects involved are limited.

I did not realize I was using Strawmen. I thought I was coming up with examples/evidence that I found flaws in. If I am using Strawmen, I apologize for that.

The myth and opinions were not about Darwinism, but related to the comments that "If either Creationists or ID folks tried to work like scientists push themselves to...", etc. Can you really prove that, about all ID people including the ID scientists who work just as hard as Evoltionary Scientists? Or are you just using a Strawman yourself?

I admit that my behavior and posts may have been unfair. I did not mean to be like that, but I have had a lot on my mind recently. Two deaths in the family, hard workload at college, family and personal issues, etc. I was not thinking as clearly as I should be. I was not reaching my potential. Still I am responsible for my actions, and I accept that responsibility and apologize for it.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,790

1/11/04 12:51:47 AM

Do you think that your opinion should count or not?

I do not have the education to grasp advanced concepts in Biology and Genetics that are of the college level. I am not ignoring them, I am unable to verify them as facts because I am not qualified to do so. How can I acknowledge something I cannot understand or verfiy? I am also not qualfied to prove or disprove either ID or Evolution, so asking me to do so is unfair. I try, but my education in the subjects involved are limited.

On the one hand you act as if we should value your opinion, and you go on to discuss your opinion at length. On the other excuse yourself by saying that you can't be expected to grasp the concepts involved, and so can't be expected to respond.

If you really think that your opinion is not worth considering, then please stop offering it. If you think that your opinion is, but you feel that you are out of your depth, then please take the points that you don't understand and ask for explanation. Then try to understand the explanations.

Lack of education is a curable problem. But only if you are willing to take steps to cure it.

I did not realize I was using Strawmen. I thought I was coming up with examples/evidence that I found flaws in. If I am using Strawmen, I apologize for that.

A subtle hint. If you are bringing up bad evolutionary arguments and shooting them down, before you know my opinion on them, then you are talking to yourself. Please don't do that.

The myth and opinions were not about Darwinism, but related to the comments that "If either Creationists or ID folks tried to work like scientists push themselves to...", etc. Can you really prove that, about all ID people including the ID scientists who work just as hard as Evoltionary Scientists? Or are you just using a Strawman yourself?

Oh, that. My comment there addressed commonly presented statistical misarguments. I already explained how scientists in pursuit of science attempt to act, and said how Creationists and ID supporters would act if they tried to meet the same standard. (They would attempt to lay out possible major flaws in their own work as areas of further possible research.) However for me to bring up statistical arguments that are commonly quoted which you hadn't is unfair in exactly the same ways that you were unfair to me.

The closest that you came to quoting the kind of commonly wrong statistical reasoning was linking to [link|http://www.tsoup.org/id1.php|http://www.tsoup.org/id1.php] which hints at all of the usual statistical misarguments, but leaves actually making the mistakes to the books that they recommend.

I'll try not to avoid bringing up common behaviour in standard rebuttals when the behaviour in common hasn't yet come up. My apologies for that.

I admit that my behavior and posts may have been unfair. I did not mean to be like that, but I have had a lot on my mind recently. Two deaths in the family, hard workload at college, family and personal issues, etc. I was not thinking as clearly as I should be. I was not reaching my potential. Still I am responsible for my actions, and I accept that responsibility and apologize for it.

Thank you for that apology. In case you didn't know, I spent a lot of energy at one point in my life on learning about evolution, and learning about the evolution vs creationism debate. It is frustrating to honestly present that knowledge repeatedly, only to feel casually dismissed.

Regards,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,849

by orion

1/11/04 2:26:03 PM

Everyone's opinions count

everyone has a right to their opinions.

I can only grasp some of the concepts. Like the observation of gravity example, I have made my own observations.

Again we go back to faith again, you are asking me to trust something I cannot understand or verify. Teachers did this a lot in grade school, high school, etc. I asked questions, got told to shut up and accept it as a fact even if I didn't understand how the fact was verified or how it can be a fact. I was told to trust it, because if I did not I would fail the quizes, finals, and papers. This included science classes. When I took Physics, I was not told that Newton's theory of gravity was only an assumption and that it might not work for bodies in motion. I was not told how he found the formulas, only that an apple hit him on the head and gave him the idea that gravity existed. Sort of takes the wonder out of it.

Lack of education is a curable problem. But only if you are willing to take steps to cure it.

I am, only in Business Management instead of Biology and Genetics. I don't have the time to pursue a field that may not pay a decent salary or allow me to get a job. I may end up as a Taxi Cab driver with a PHD that is useless in the current job market. I have priorities in my life, so I have to carefully choose what to study. If I had won the lottery, of course I would be able to study those fields, maybe go to a decent college somewhere. Study with Stephen Hawking and learn Physics from him, etc.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #134,916

1/11/04 11:36:18 PM

Re: Everyone's opinions count

and everyone has a right to their opinion are not the same thing.

Tell, do Osama bin Laden's opinions count? How about Stalin? Hitler? Does his opinion on the right way to deal with religious minorities count?

Some people's opinions are quite valueless.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #134,917

1/11/04 11:47:07 PM

Re: Everyone's opinions count

Put it this way: everyone has a right to an opinion, but a moral duty to have a reasonable one.

-drl

Post #134,993

by orion

1/12/04 11:36:08 AM

1/12/04 11:59:25 AM

Here in the US

even people with bad opinions like that get to keep them. The problem comes when they break a law, or do something bad, then it is no longer an opinion but an action. A bad action can be punished and is wrong. Otherwise send out the Thought Police to send people into camps to get their opinions changed. Which in itself is wrong to do as well.

So are you saying I have no rights to my own opinions and I must be forced to change them? Do you compare me to evil people in history because you do not agree with my opinions? My opinions are not bad or evil, or based on meaness or hate. They are just different. Yet somehow this is a crime? If so, all who consider the ID theory will be round up and thrown into jail for having different opinions. Why stop there, why not round up all people who do not believe your religion and throw them into jail? Why not throw back the clock on human rights and throw into jail anyone who does not have the same opinions as you? If you do, you are no better than Hitler or Bin Laden in my opinion and have not learned from History.

Edit: people with bad opinions might get monitored by the government, and arrested while committing an action that is bad. But even bad groups are allowed to have cable access TV shows, newsletters, parades, etc to express their views. We have a right to ignore them or disagree with them, but we cannot change their opinions or take away their rights.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Edited by orion Jan. 12, 2004, 11:59:25 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #135,001

by admin

1/12/04 12:05:40 PM

Not the same.

The right to hold an opinion, and having that opinion count, are two different things.

You can have any opinion you wish. Just don't expect anyone else to give it the weight you think it should have.

Which makes the rest of your post nonsensical.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #135,094

by orion

1/12/04 4:46:52 PM

I only ask

for my right to have an opinion without people trying to force me to change it.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,095

by admin

1/12/04 4:47:54 PM

That's not what you said.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #135,096

by orion

1/12/04 4:56:42 PM

What did I say?

Everyone's opinions count? Maybe I was wrong there. I keep getting forced to chang e mine. Until, I just do not know what my opinions are anymore or what I've said due to the pressure being heaped upon me. So much pressure, like a denial of service attack. Causes me much confusion.

Apparently my opinions do not count, otherwise I would not be attacked as much as I am? Maybe I no longer have the right to an opinion any more. Everyone else is right, and I am always 100% wrong.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,097

1/12/04 4:58:27 PM

MWBC. 'nuff said.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #135,100

by orion

1/12/04 5:07:29 PM

Sorry I did not get that

which MWBC did you mean? Google turns up several possibilities.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,105

1/12/04 5:26:07 PM

Here's the one that I mean:

Moan Whine Bitch Complain.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #135,019

1/12/04 12:50:44 PM

Re: Here in the US

even people with bad opinions like that get to keep them. The problem comes when they break a law, or do something bad, then it is no longer an opinion but an action. A bad action can be punished and is wrong. Otherwise send out the Thought Police to send people into camps to get their opinions changed. Which in itself is wrong to do as well.

\r\n\r\nWhat's that got to do with what I said?\r\n\r\n

So are you saying I have no rights to my own opinions and I must be forced to change them? Do you compare me to evil people in history because you do not agree with my opinions? My opinions are not bad or evil, or based on meaness or hate. They are just different. Yet somehow this is a crime? If so, all who consider the ID theory will be round up and thrown into jail for having different opinions. Why stop there, why not round up all people who do not believe your religion and throw them into jail? Why not throw back the clock on human rights and throw into jail anyone who does not have the same opinions as you? If you do, you are no better than Hitler or Bin Laden in my opinion and have not learned from History.

\r\n\r\nIf you want the answer to your question, read what I said.\r\n\r\nYou are putting words into my mouth, and using it to construct a strawman, followed by a slippery slope argument extrapolating it far beyond anything that I said or even implied. This particular practice of yours is one of the reasons why I hold your opinion's value to be very low.\r\n\r\n

Edit: people with bad opinions might get monitored by the government, and arrested while committing an action that is bad. But even bad groups are allowed to have cable access TV shows, newsletters, parades, etc to express their views. We have a right to ignore them or disagree with them, but we cannot change their opinions or take away their rights.

\r\n\r\nThat's right. Now point out where I said anyone doesn't have a right to have an opinion. Oh wait, you can't.\r\n\r\nThis particular post of yours really encapsulates why so many people here have such a low opinion of your opinions.

--\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #135,098

by orion

1/12/04 5:01:03 PM

1/12/04 5:05:23 PM

Well I could have been reading it wrong

it just seemed to me like the conversation was heading that way. Sorry if I misread you.

My point was that if we took away the rights of anyone to have a different opinion or put them in jail for having different opinons, then we are no better than those evil people in history who did the same thing. Sorry you missed my point, and sorry if it turned into a personal attack.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Edited by orion Jan. 12, 2004, 05:05:23 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #135,104

1/12/04 5:24:39 PM

That wasn't your point

Your point was that "everyone's opinions count and everyone has a right to an opinion." I was pointing out that the A of the "A and B" was totally false, and offered counter examples of people whose opinion counts for sweet fuck all. I tried to make it easy for you by picking really obvious examples of peope whose opinion doesn't count for dick and asking you if their opinions counted. From that you seemed to think that I wanted you to get thrown in jail for not having correct opinions, when what I was really trying to show you that the simple fact of having an opinion doesn't mean it actually counts for anything in and of itself.

The rest of it was just a convenient jumping off point for you to complain some more about how everyone's against you.

You know what? Most people aren't against you. Most people don't even know you exist, and of the ones that do, most of them don't care one way or another. Around here, I suspect that most people would be happy to see you get your act together, because you'd probably be a decent enough person to yak with if you did. However, the constant piteous cries of "I don't understand" and "it's not my fault because XYZ are/were against me" is just irritating, and makes the set of people who don't care smaller while making the set of people that Just Wish You'd Go Away larger.

Really, it's time for you to stop wallowing in that self-pitying crap. It's just tiresome.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #135,109

by orion

1/12/04 5:39:52 PM

I had many points

but I guess you have a low opinion of them?

I agree I need to get my act together. No disagreement there.

It is not everyone attacking me, just some. Very vocal or postal, and trying to get me to change my opinions because they think they are valueless or wrong. My question is "Who gets to decide what is valueless?" Perhaps one group of people who hate the US, but do not agree to use terrorist actions have value, and another who hate the US and advocate terrorist actions are valueless. Or are both valueless for hating the US? Who decides that? You seem to be an expert on the subject, so you tell me.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,114

1/12/04 5:47:37 PM

Passive aggressive too

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #135,117

by orion

1/12/04 5:49:59 PM

You got more to add?

Or are you done?

Or can you stick with the issue and tell me how to tell if one opinion is valueless or not.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,119

1/12/04 5:55:53 PM

Yes

You'll find you'll get a lot further ahead if you don't act like a petulant child. It's not that you don't have it in you... you do. You just need to get off the self-pity trip you fall into all too easily.

How to tell if one opinion is valueless... is a subject that one learns throughout one's life. One way to tell is to compare the opinion to reality, and assess how well it accords with it. For example, you seem to say that you believe in creationism. Do you believe that dinosaurs existed? OTOH, you also seem to ascribe to intelligent design. How well does ID fit with reality? Does Occam's Razor allow for ID, when a simpler explanation is available?

You say you don't have time to learn about a lot of different subjects... you don't need to learn a subject completely to learn about a subject.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #135,275

by orion

1/13/04 1:22:53 AM

I do agree with you somewhat

I do fall into the self-pity trap too easily. I fall for a lot of other traps as well.

I do not know Occam's Razor, so I cannot tell you.

Creationism skips some details, like the existance of dinosars or even the Earth cooling off. If you go by Genesis, there are two different stories of creation. I believe I have already given my opinions on the book of Genesis creation stories. No need to repeat myself.

As for as how ID fits into reality, one may argue that I don't know much about reality. :) Still I have made observations that tell me that there is a certain Inteligent Design about the Universe, things seem to me to be well thought out. So to me, it seems to fit reality. Someone else may think otherwise.

I argue that the validity of an opinion is realative to the observer of that opinion. While you and I might agree that Osama Bin Liden's opinions are valueless or wrong, elsewhere in the world they agree with them and see him as a hero. Others might have no comment on that sort of opinion because they do not want to choose sides and get hit by either side.

I have recently learned that ID is not the same as Creationism, also that there is an Intelligent Design Creationsm. ID shows that there is an intelligence behind creation, but not who or what that creator is. IDC says not only is there a creator, but that creator is God. Apparently some people confuse Creationism for ID.

You say you don't have time to learn about a lot of different subjects... you don't need to learn a subject completely to learn about a subject.

Yes but I argue that if you are to learn Genetics, you must first understand Biology, etc. The college level courses have prerequisites which a student must learn first before advancing. Some things like Ethics, Philosophy, Psychology, Calculus, etc need to be learned to make sense out of things. It would be foolish to think that I can bypass 6 years of college classes and learn advanced subjects without knowing the other knowledge I have to learn before understanding the more advanced one. I have a real life example, I taught programmers how to program in Visual BASIC, but I failed to teach them teamwork, ethics, etc. If they had paid attention in PE class or listened to what their sports coaches said, they would have been better team players. If they had followed their religion or paid attention in ethics class, they wouldn't have been so Machiavellian. Plus there are computer classes I had that they aparently didn't have or didn't pay attention to that could have helped them write better qaulity code. My mistake was trying to teach them something they did not have the education to learn, nor the education required to fully use the knowledge the best way they could. I admit a few of them did quite well, but knew what they were supposed to know to fully use the knowledge and work in a team.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,121

by hnick

1/12/04 6:05:05 PM

Ok, let me have a whack at it

There are opinions and then there are qualified opinions.
If we were discussing Visual Basic, your opinion would count for considerably more than mine as I have never actually used VB. I could have the opinion that VB sucks but if we were debating the merits of VB I would have to do better than that. I am allowed to hold that opinion and express it, but it does not matter at all against a qualified opinion of someone who has used it for real. My opinion is not qualified. It is an easy way for me not to have to learn VB. It has no merit in a technical discussion.
Similarly in the above debate, you stated that you believe in ID. Nifty. That is your opinion and you are certainly allowed to hold it. Your belief, no matter how fervent, does not equate with a qualified opinion for purposes of debate. It comes down to: "I believe <thing>", response: "Cool, now get out of the way and let those who have studied the issues get on with it".
You are allowed your opinion. It's not interesting in the terms of this debate.

Hope that helps.

Post #135,529

by orion

1/13/04 7:08:54 PM

Qualified opinions

Yes but what if my opinions on VB are biased, how would you know? What if I got some of them wrong, and you do not know enough about it to tell? What if even I do not know that I am wrong?

Consider this, I take my car to an automechanic. In my opinion it needs an oil change (over 3000 miles) and a new air filter. In his/her opinion it also needs a new carborator and distributor cap. Now I never had a problem with those parts of the car before, and while I am no automotive expert, something sounds fishy here. A Qualified Expert told me I need a new carborator and distributor cap, which will cost me a lot more money. So what do I do? Believe the qaulified expert or get a second opinion? Being the skeptic that I am, I go to a second garage and a second mechanic and he/she examines the car and says the carborator and distributor cap are fine. So what do I do when Qualified Experts disagree? I go with the one I agree with and think has the best and truest answer. Same deal with ID and Evolution Scientists. :)

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,583

1/14/04 1:25:20 AM

Shopping for experts

Sometimes experts are wrong. Sometimes experts lie. Sometimes the person who you think is an expert, isn't. etc.

There are ways to - sometimes - have an idea what is really true. Sometimes you can tell by reputation. Sometimes you know something about what the expert is saying. Sometimes you can compare experts. Sometimes you have to guess. But mostly (admittedly not always) you can find your way with some common sense.

Complicating affairs is the common practice of "shopping for the right expert". You go to one expert, and don't get an answer that you like. You go to another expert, and get another answer that you don't like. Eventually you find an expert that gives the answer that you wanted.

Can you trust that answer though? This is how Enron selected auditors. This is how drug addicts find doctors who will prescribe whatever they want. This is how PHBs find consultants who will prescribe whatever direction the PHB wants.

So how did you do your selection process? You know full well what any standard scientist would say. You know full well what the people here who have learned the most about science have to say. However you found people who sound really authoritative who happen to say something that you want to believe. Obviously they don't generally have the scientific credentials that you might like, but they sound like they have lots of details, and they have some fancy websites. They don't really agree with the scientists, but they claim to be experts and sound convincing about why scientists should agree with them.

Voila! You have your expert! And when other people (many of whom obviously have put more energy into this than you have) doubt the quality of your expert, you get to retreat into saying, "Well how can I tell? These experts disagree, and if experts disagree, how can I know who to believe?"

Oh, better yet. You call them both Qualified Experts. What are their qualifications? How did you judge that?

So yes. You have found people that you can call experts. They give answers that disagree with some standard experts. You obviously don't know enough to choose based on your knowledge, and have decided that you aren't interested in learning for yourself. Nor do you wish to listen to advice from people you know who have put out the energy.

Wonderful.

You are studying business administration? Let me guess, you are hoping to go into management, and possibly become a PHB? Well you seem to already have the mindset down...

Regards,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #135,626

by Ashton

1/14/04 8:13:37 AM

Heh..

I wasn't even gonna touch That one.. I mean - Where would one start? (let alone finish)

Brave! (or something)

A.

Post #135,663

by orion

1/14/04 10:52:17 AM

Searching for experts

So yes. You have found people that you can call experts. They give answers that disagree with some standard experts. You obviously don't know enough to choose based on your knowledge, and have decided that you aren't interested in learning for yourself. Nor do you wish to listen to advice from people you know who have put out the energy.

Wonderful.

You are studying business administration? Let me guess, you are hoping to go into management, and possibly become a PHB? Well you seem to already have the mindset down...

Wrong, I am interested in learning for myself, I just do not have the time or the money to do so. My time is being used to learn something that can benefit my career. Also the people who put out the energy to give advice, how can I tell if they are wrong or not? Using your previous argument about experts, of course.

Complicating affairs is the common practice of "shopping for the right expert". You go to one expert, and don't get an answer that you like. You go to another expert, and get another answer that you don't like. Eventually you find an expert that gives the answer that you wanted.

Can you trust that answer though? This is how Enron selected auditors. This is how drug addicts find doctors who will prescribe whatever they want. This is how PHBs find consultants who will prescribe whatever direction the PHB wants.

About Enron, we studied it in class. President says to VP, there is $25M in it for you if you balance our books in the black. Reward without the risk almost always leads to fraud. VP tells his people what to do to balance the books, takes the $25M and retires to a small island somewhere. President and other executives find out about it, but cover it up and hopes that nobody else finds out about it. That was their mistake, not correcting the problem before it got out of hand.

Through common sense and guessing, I was able to suspect that the car did not need a new carborator and distributor cap. That Mechanic #1 may be trying to sell me something I did not need in order to earn more money from me. If I paid the money and took the old parts to 10 different mechanics who all tell me that the parts are still good, then there is a very good chance that Mechanic #1 ripped me off. What are the odds that Mechanic #2 is ripping me off? I am not being told I need to buy something extra, and the opinion seems to be to be of value. What would you do in such a situation? Would you side with Mechanic #1 or Mechanic #2, and why? How did you reach that conclusion? Remember, you are not an automotive expert and have to base your decision on what these two experts say.

Often a Manager has to make decisions based on opinions of others. In Classical Management this is true. Too bad I am not learning Classical Management, I am learning Organizational Management. In OM, we empower the employees to make decisions that affect their workplace. So an employee that works in a team of experts will make the decision based on their own certified opinions, the more diverse the team, the better the choices will be to choose from. If I had to choose between ID and Evolution, I would have a team made up of ID Scientists and Evolution Scientists and have them reach a decsion for me using empowerment. This new style of management will hopefully eliminate the PHB with servant leadership and stewardship.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,677

1/14/04 11:25:42 AM

Any possibility of useful conversation has ended

Actually it did a while ago, but a pathetic curiousity about how far you would take this lead me to drag it out to the end.

I now sympathize with Ross after his attempts at talking with you. You don't know anything. You don't care to know anything. And you aren't bothered by this.

I won't waste any more typing on the subject.

Good day,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #135,705

by orion

1/14/04 1:39:53 PM

Obviously you are mistaken

Actually it did a while ago, but a pathetic curiousity about how far you would take this lead me to drag it out to the end.

So you had motives to egg me on and see how far I would go?

I now sympathize with Ross after his attempts at talking with you. You don't know anything. You don't care to know anything. And you aren't bothered by this.

I disagree I do know something, not as much as other people might, but I am not without at least some information. I at least have my observations.

As far as caring to know anything, I care a lot, but as I explained my energies are focuced on learning a different subject than the one we are currently discussing. If I had infinite time, I would have the time to learn the Sciences behind the theory. Reality and fact is that my time is finite, and I have to manage my time carefully. This is not the same as saying I do not care to learn anything, the fact is that my priorities are currently elsewhere. Now some time in the future after I finish earning my current degree, I may learn something else. I did express a willingness to learn, but I preferred to learn from a college rather than via email or whatever method was proposed. I believe that I did state that if I had won the lottery, my finacial situation would be resolved and that I could afford and have the time to learn Physics from Stephen Hawking, etc.

I won't waste any more typing on the subject.

Can I hold you to that? Many people have promised me that, but later broke their promise or word.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,753

by orion

1/14/04 4:55:15 PM

Let me put it another way

why should I bother to learn from people who either ignore my questions, avoid them, or react to me in such a way that upsets me? Will I be able to learn something from this person without going through a hard time and getting stressed out in the process? My answer to that question was a "No" based on replies to my posts on this thread. It is very likely I will ask a question that will cause problems between me and that other person. The question won't be answered, I will not be able to learn, and we will both be wasting our time.

"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

Post #135,772

1/14/04 6:03:45 PM

Re: Let me put it another way

Let me put it another way
why should I bother to learn from people who either ignore my questions, avoid them, or react to me in such a way that upsets me? Will I be able to learn something from this person without going through a hard time and getting stressed out in the process?

A certain amount of stress is unavoidable, anything that challenges a persons worldview creates mental stress. The technical term is "cognitive dissonance", I found a decent short description here [link|http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm|Learning]

Jay

Post #135,784

1/14/04 7:52:21 PM

1/14/04 8:22:08 PM

Please review the thread from the beginning.

why should I bother to learn from people who either ignore my questions, avoid them, or react to me in such a way that upsets me?

Let's break it down:

why should I bother to learn from people

Because it's easier to learn from people than to try to figure out everything by yourself.

who either ignore my questions, avoid them or react to me in such a way that upsets me?

You can't control how others react. You can only control your own reactions to others.

I'd suggest reviewing the thread and trying to understand that several people here were trying to help you.

If you do so, you'll see that in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133420|#13420] you made statements about "theories" of Creationism. I and others gave you information on what theories are, what science is, etc.

In [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133581|#133581] you ask some [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rhetorical%20question|rhetorical questions]. You constructed [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=straw%20man|straw men] about gold in China (hint - no one ever said there was no gold in China and it's not a [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=134806|"theory"]. What a theory is was discussed in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133458|#133458]).

And so on until in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=135663|#135663] you say:

Wrong, I am interested in learning for myself, I just do not have the time or the money to do so. My time is being used to learn something that can benefit my career. Also the people who put out the energy to give advice, how can I tell if they are wrong or not? Using your previous argument about experts, of course.

In this little snippet once can find evidence that you're not interested in learning things here, you're just interested in [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry|sophistry]. People usually find sophistry annoying after a while, and that's likely why Ben eventually got upset with your posts. You should be happy that Ben spent the time to write to you and should have tried to learn from the information he provided.

If you can spend the time posting replies here, you can spend the time to read and try to understand what you're responding to. It doesn't take that much more "time or money" to do so.

EOT.

[edit - clarified the last sentence in the next to last paragraph.]

Regards,
Scott.

Edited by Another Scott Jan. 14, 2004, 08:22:08 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #135,832

by rcareaga

1/14/04 11:45:10 PM

Die, Norman! Die! (new thread)

Created as new thread #135831 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=135831|Die, Norman! Die!]

Post #134,918

1/12/04 12:10:02 AM

But not equally

Suppose that your car breaks. You may have an opinion about what is wrong with it. Your mechanic has a different opinion. Your opinions are not equal, the odds are far more likely that the mechanic is right than you.

Why? Because your mechanic has learned more than you about cars, and has a lot of relevant experience. The question of what is wrong with the car is a factual one, there is a right answer, and your mechanic's experience makes him more likely to be able to find it. Or if he doesn't know the answer, he knows how to find it out. Which is why you take your car to him rather than dealing with it yourself.

The same is true on any factual question where there is a body of verifiable knowledge built up. Not because anyone matters more or is worth more than anyone else, but because knowledge and experience tells.

Now listen to yourself. You are acknowledging that you haven't aquired a solid base of knowledge about science. That means that your opinion on science is less valuable than the opinion of someone who has attempted to aquire that knowledge. Change subject matters and this changes. For instance I know less VB than you do, if we disagree there, then you're probably right. But on science, it is reversed.

It is true that this somewhat smacks of being told to take what I say on faith. But there are some key differences between this and what you experienced in school:

I'm not grading you. That pressure is off.
The odds are very good that I know a lot more than your teachers ever did. If you ask me tough questions, I can give far more detailed answers, and where I don't have answers, I can give you an idea where to look.
By your own admission, you are deliberately choosing to learn business management rather than science. Given that, you have little cause to complain about a continued lack of knowledge about science.

So if you really want to understand better, you can. But you are choosing not to.

Regards,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,861

by a6l6e6x

1/11/04 2:57:26 PM

In the words of Dinah Maria Mulock Craik,

an English writer (1826-1887):

There is no judgment so harsh as those of the erring, the inexperienced and the young.

Orion has those categories well covered.

Alex

There is nothing that can be said by mathematical symbols and relations which cannot also be said by words. The converse, however, is false. Much that can be and is said by words cannot successfully be put into equations, because it is nonsense. -- Clifford Ambrose Truesdell (1919-2000)

Post #134,024

by Ashton

1/7/04 3:37:04 AM

You learn to Love the Mystery

-- or --
you surrender to the imaginations of a Corporate Priesthood and to the scribblings of hundreds-years-old 5th-hand committees generating words from their imaginations - and just 'believe' all those silly God-said-to-Me things ... 'cause it's so much easier to do that, than:

Look inside and Find Out. With sustained effort.
Or to keep silent on 'Truth' - til you have encountered it.

Preach - when you Know, if then..
(The usual form is to wait til someone asks a Question a One can answer.)

Else... it's just more blab.
(Sincerity of Belief - net value: nul)

Knowing that you don't Know - is said to be a higher state than, imagining that you 'know'. That's about what I read Jay to be saying - no cause for apoplexy there..

Otherwise.. yes, there's Something in what you say - above.
So don't mock your own good sense - by violating the implications of what you just said. (You Are smarter than some of your thoughtless automatic responses, IMO.)

Post #133,458

1/4/04 12:14:02 AM

You need to understand the meaning of the words you're using

"Theory" has a meaning in science. It doesn't mean a guess about something. Saying something is a scientific theory doesn't mean that it hasn't been extremely vigorously tested or that it's a guess that's as valid as any other. A [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory|theory] is:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

A theory has to explain known facts and be able to make testable predictions. Otherwise, it's not a theory. [link|http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm|Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation] has been very well tested. So well tested that it had to be superseded by [link|http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/epo/brochures/new_win/nw11.html|Einstein's Theory of Gravity] because some of the predictions of Newton's theory were found to be incorrect while Einstein's predictions were found to be much closer to actual measurements. Solid-State Theory serves as the basis for the [link|http://www.ee.umd.edu/~taylor/Electrons8.htm|electronics] that are used in your computer.

Creationism isn't science. It's not a different kind of science - it's not science. Period. It's religion.

[link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science|Science] doesn't need faith to work. It rejects faith as a valid explanation because it's not testable and it's impossible to make testable predictions based on faith. Science is:

1 a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

It doesn't say anything there about faith or hope or belief or opinion or reference to holy books.

Religion and Science each have their place. Mixing them does neither any good.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #133,459

1/4/04 12:22:09 AM

Re: You need to understand the meaning of the words you're u

Well said, but..

Science also has an element of faith - that the right combination of ideas and symbols will describe how the world is organized. It's the most basic kind of faith - that the world is reasonable. There is no requirement that the world be reasonable. In fact fundamentalists reject this kind of faith for another kind - that the world is the way it is based on authority.

I think the real issue here is not religion vs. science, but authoritarianism in the form of the Received Word, vs. the individualism embodied in the Lone Searcher. It is certainly possible to be deeply religious and scientifically clued - for example, shortly before he scribbled down the line element for an expanding Universe, Georges Lemaitre was ordained as a minister! and there are more examples.

In short, science did not spring full grown from a blanket rejection of faith, rather, emerged gradually as curiosity and confidence in the individual mind overcame the weight of authority.

-drl

Post #133,466

by admin

1/4/04 12:42:44 AM

9 times 6 is 42.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #133,473

1/4/04 1:11:11 AM

Yes and no.

Science also has an element of faith - that the right combination of ideas and symbols will describe how the world is organized. It's the most basic kind of faith - that the world is reasonable.

You're treading very close to a philosophical argument, and I think I understand where you're coming from, but I'll mainly disagree.

I think of science as an incremental process. I don't have confidence that science will be able to describe everything (at least not in a finite time period).

Quantum Mechanics is quite unreasonable at first glance. But it has been shown to be highly effective in giving testable predictions that have turned out to be correct. Transistors and LEDs could not have been made without the understanding that QM gave pioneering researchers in solid-state electronics.

Yes, there are underlying assumptions in science - that the rules of physics are consistent throughout time and space. That the speed of light hasn't changed. Etc. But I wouldn't describe it as [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith|faith] - especially not in the religious (#2, #4, #5) sense:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3.Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4.often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6.A set of principles or beliefs.

If evidence is presented, e.g., that the speed of light has changed through time, and theories can be constructed that account for that and existing knowledge, then science can and will accept it because science is a process. Science won't crumble the way a religion would when one of it's cornerstones of faith is successfully challenged. They have different kinds of "faith".

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #133,483

1/4/04 3:51:46 AM

That is not the reasonableness that Ross is asserting

The reasonableness that Ross is asserting is that the results that we have measured in this corner of the Universe over a few centuries can give us some insight into mechanisms that have been in play over far longer periods of time, through great reaches of space including portions under far more extreme conditions than any we have experienced.

It seems that the Universe is amazingly reasonable in this way though, or else we would have been incredibly unlikely to make the progress that we have so far.

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #133,504

1/4/04 11:10:45 AM

Hume discussed this

There is an element of faith to science, and there are very good arguments that science's base assumptions are no more provable than religion's. In certain ways, science IS a religion, at least in terms of the provability of certain fundamental principles that guide it.

Hume's discussion of this centered on the faith that the sun would rise in the morning. Simply put, one day that article of faith will be false... one day, the sun will not rise. However, his argument in favour of following that article of faith is that one HAS to act as if it is true, even though at one time it will not be true, for doing otherwise prevents anyone from being capable of doing anything. Science basically works in the same way.

That said, there is a huge gulf between the articles of faith of science and the articles of faith of religion. Both are ultimately appeals to authority, but the nature of the authority in question is quite different. The authority appealed to in the case of religion is the received word of God, filtered via a human being, be it Abraham, Moses, Jesus/Paul, or Mohammed; in short, from voices in their head. The authority appealed to in science is the observable results of testing, done by many independent observers in many independent tests.

Science and Religion discuss very different things. The idea that the received word of God from a very small list of individual human beings has relevance to the received word of nature from many independent tests of nature from human beings discuss the same areas is false at best.

Science has nothing to say about an immortal soul, or reincarnation, or what have you. It is simply not provable in the field of science, so therefore science has nothing to say about it. Science cannot be used to either prove or disprove the fundamental tenets of faith that make up religion (which is a very small list by the way; "immortal essence" and "the next life is more important that this one" are the most basic tenets of any belief system that can be legitimately be called a religion). Conversely, religion doesn't really have much to say about the facts of nature as revealed by science, the wishes of the zealots notwithstanding.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #133,514

by Andrew Grygus

1/4/04 12:49:52 PM

And to quote Aleister Crowley . .

. . "Over the centuries there have been a great many holy men, but only a very few succeeded in founding a great religion - or were they the failures?"

Mr. Crowley's works make it abundantly clear those were the failures, and he avoided that fault. Today, 95% of those claiming to be his followers and 100% of his distractors completely misunderstand his work.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #133,920

by Arkadiy

1/6/04 5:14:45 PM

Even more interesting "reasonableness"

If the following description of events is correct, I have to ask: if Kepler already had accurate predictive formulae, what drove Newton to look for his, more elegant explanations? I see here an example of true faith in "reasonableness".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Detailed observation of the movement of planets in the sky didn't yield results that made any sense in terms of the old idea of them being attached to rotating crystal spheres. In fact, given that Mercury and Venus didn't stray far from the Sun, it didn't even quite make sense that the earth was at the center. Copernicus proposed that the Sun was actually the center, causing something of a stir.

A rather unpleasant man named Tycho Brahe spent years making extremely accurate records of the movements of the planets (all without telescopes, I might mention) and when he died all that data was inherited by Kepler, who tried to make sense of it. He finally concluded that Copernicus was right, but also determined that all orbits were actually elliptical rather than circular, with the sun at one focus of the ellipse. Even more astounding, each planet's orbital speed changed in well defined ways, moving fastest when closest to the sun and slowest when furthest away from it. He was able to formulate mathematical descriptions of it all that were very good at predicting future observations of the planets, but did not explain why it might be happening.

It was Newton, "standing on the shoulders of giants", who ultimately figured it out with the formulation of the universal law of gravitation. It was a tremendous achievement, but it also broke through another basic dogma because it seemed to be the same everywhere, as ultimately turned out to be the case with all of Galilean mechanics, and ultimately all of physics and all of science. Movement of objects in the heavens were not different than movement here on earth. In fact, there didn't seem to be any difference at all between the heavens and the earth except that the earth was closer to us.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

(from [link|http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/01/Threewaystruggle.shtml|denBeste] - kindly ignore ideology or go to Politics.

--

"It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)"

-- James Lileks

Post #133,924

1/6/04 5:27:30 PM

Info is in the Principia.

[link|http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/history.htm|Here] is a little history:

The birth of the Principia may be traced back to a discussion in 1684 at the Royal Society. Astronomer Edmund Halley and architect Sir Christopher Wren suspected that there was an inverse square relation governing celestial motions based on Kepler's Third Law of elliptical orbits, but no one could prove it. They brought the question before Newton's arch rival Robert Hooke, who claimed that he could prove the inverse square law and all three of Kepler's laws. His claim was met with scepticism, and Wren offered a forty-shilling book as a prize for the correct proof within a two-month limit. Hooke failed to produce the calculation, and Halley travelled to Cambridge to ask for Newton's opinion. Newton responded with a typical lack of interest in work that he had already completed, that he had already solved the problem years before. He could not find the calculation among his papers and promised to send Halley a proof. Halley, suspecting the same bogus claim he had received from Hooke, left frustrated and returned to London. Three months later he received a nine page treatise from Newton, written in Latin, De Motu Corporum, or On the Motions of Bodies in Orbit. In it, Newton offers the correct proof of Kepler's laws in terms of an inverse square law of gravitation and his three laws of motion. Halley suggested publication, but Newton, reluctant to appear in print, refused. At Halley's insistence, Newton finally began writing and, with typical thoroughness, worked for 18 months revising and rewriting the short paper until it grew into three volumes. The Royal Society, having exhausted available funds on an extravagant edition of De Historia Piscium, or The History of Fishes, could not pay for the publication and so it was at Edmund Halley's expense that Philosophi\ufffd Naturalis Principia Mathematica was finally published.

The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, or The Principia as it came to be commonly known, begins with the solid foundation on which the three books rest. Newton begins by defining the concepts of mass, motion (momentum), and three types of forces: inertial, impressed and centripetal. He also gives his definitions of absolute time, space, and motion, offering evidence for the existence of absolute space and motion in his famous "bucket experiment". These absolute concepts provoked great criticism from philosophers Leibnitz, Berkeley, and others, including Ernst Mach centuries later. The three Laws of Motion are proposed, with consequences derived from them. The remainder of The Principia continues in rigorously logical Euclidean fashion in the form of propositions, lemmas, corollaries and scholia. Book One, Of The Motion of Bodies, applies the laws of motion to the behaviour of bodies in various orbits. Book Two continues with the motion of resisted bodies in fluids, and with the behaviour of fluids themselves. In the Third Book, The System of the World, Newton applies the Law of Universal Gravitation to the motion of planets, moons and comets within the Solar System. He explains a diversity of phenomena from this unifying concept, including the behaviour of Earth's tides, the precession of the equinoxes, and the irregularities in the moon's orbit.

The Principia brought Newton fame, publicity, and financial security. It established him, at the age of 45, as one of the greatest scientists in history.

Bless the workaholics.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #134,037

1/7/04 6:41:22 AM

Re: Info is in the Principia.

I am highly skeptical of this "history".

The idea of "inverse square law" originating in anyone other than Newton is absurd - there were NO dynamical laws of ANY KIND before Newton wrote them, and indeed this is his actual achievement - putting down a distinct, well-defined dynamical theory of matter. The whole idea of force itself was invented by him, and indeed the mathematical method to describe it.

Newton antagonized many of his colleagues, who he must have understood were so far behind him that education was hopeless. Newton did not always behave in the most straightforward manner and let his frustrations get the better of him on occasion. But there is not a shred of doubt that "inverse square law of gravity" is Newton's alone. Halley's speculation about "attraction according to the reciprocal duplicate proportion" cannot be called a force law. Indeed while he was speculating about this problem, the solution was already known to Newton, who had tired of battling with the loudmouth Hooke (the string theorist of his day), had withdrawn and refused to publish his work. Halley deserves great credit for putting up with the nearly paranoic Newton and in getting him to come out of his shell and explain his work. This was the real origin of the Principia, and Halley's actual contribution.

-drl

Post #134,106

1/7/04 2:47:19 PM

I'm not

The description exactly matches a decent biography of Newton's that I read recently. Hooke had good intuition and nothing else. He guessed what the right law of gravity was, and knew what he'd have to show to show that it was right. However it was all guesses, Hooke didn't have the mathematical techniques to tackle the problem. He just had good intuition and a big mouth.

Newton had been over the same territory decades earlier, with the right math, and enough elbow grease to back it up. There is no question that Newton had the result long before Hooke's boast. Furthermore Newton seems to have suspected that Hooke couldn't have come up with that guess, and believed that Hooke must have stolen it somehow from Newton.

This took place, of course, after Hooke and Newton had already tangled about optics. That Halley got Newton to admit to having a proof, and further got Newton to publish it is a testament both to Halley's dedication and some luck. It probably helped that Newton tried to prove his point by sending a "challenge" to the Royal Society, one which Newton made a mathematical mistake in his treatment of, and one which Hooke guessed right. (The challenge was that under an inverse square law, when an object is dropped, does it actually fall straight down? Hooke guessed the right answer from Kepler's laws.)

Newton's public embarrassment may have played a role in Newton's decision to produce as comprehensive a work as he did. There is no question that Newton's irritations over Hooke's past quibbling and grandstanding was part of why Newton deliberately made the Principia hard to read. Newton wanted to make sure that anyone who wanted to comment had to READ the blasted thing first. (He says as much in letters to people.)

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #133,926

1/6/04 5:39:23 PM

Several things

First of all there was the question of comets. Comets appeared, and seemed to follow paths like the ones that planets did. Why?

Second there were moon systems. Starting with Galileo, people knew that Jupiter had moons. They were able to see that Jupiter's moons seemed to follow a Keplerian rule of their own around Jupiter with different constants. Coincidence? It was natural to try to generalize. Particularly since we had our own Moon that didn't fit the system.

Third, Kepler's laws were not perfect. While they are fairly accurate, they don't take into account perturbations in the orbits of the planets from other planets.

Fourth, gravity is all around us. It was one thing to say that Venus moved around The Sun. It is quite another to explain why Venus doesn't fall on our heads instead.

And the last reason was the hope that a better theory would explain more phenomena. And it did. Newton fit all of the above together while explaining tides, the precession of the Earth, and various other perturbations.

An interesting side-note. It turns out that if we had a binary star but were far enough away, that The Earth could readily have survived as long as it has. However figuring out orbital mechanics would have been insanely hard. The simple perioodicities which lay behind theories from the Greeks through Kepler only happen when a single gravity source dominates. Arriving at the same conclusion would be far harder with 2 interacting gravity sources acting on everything else.

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,039

1/7/04 7:00:09 AM

Re: Even more interesting "reasonableness"

Kepler had what is now known as "kinematics" - a description of motion with an explanation. The "spring law" of Hooke is of the same character. What Newton did was derive the kinematical laws from a 1st principle, that the acceleration of a body is proportional to the impressed force, which in Newton is a primitive concept. So, what Newton did was create a brand new thing, a dynamical theory of matter itself based on the idea of force. Kepler's "laws" are then just a special case for a centripetal (pointing to the center) acceleration that has a strength inversely proportional to the distance.

Today we have theories that are totally kinematic (strings), partially kinematic (gauge theories of weak and strong interactions), almost dynamic (gravitation), and totally dynamic (electrodynamics). The impetus is toward dynamical theories in which everything is reduced to a basic principle.

(Gravitation in Einstein's form fails to be completely dynamic because direction is a localized concept, while length is not.)

-drl

Post #133,705

by danreck

1/5/04 4:55:16 PM

To quote Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles...

"Damn, Ross, you use your tongue slicker than a $20 French (Freedom) whore!"
Thank you.

Just a few thoughts,

Danno

Post #133,711