Here Pascal looked into the issue of discovering truths, arguing that the ideal such method would be to found all propositions on already established truths. At the same time, however, he claimed this was impossible because such established truths would require other truths to back them up\ufffdfirst principles cannot be reached. Based on this, Pascal argued that the procedure used in geometry was as perfect as possible, with certain principles assumed and other propositions developed from them. Nevertheless, there was no way to know the assumed principles to be true.to name just one of a long sophist tradition. I write to you because you have displayed a knowledge of philosophy and metaphysics and are in the throws of patting everyone's backs in Flame OFF! Irony. Intellectual treason. Are you for real?
To me, the intelligent design debate is just one more chapter in a debate that has gone on at least since the old dead Greek dudes. The prime mover... It's so neat to hear rationalist talk about the need for scientific method about events that have no witnesses, are not reproduceable, etc... It just makes me cream my jeans that we have come so far as a species. It would be absurd to introduce a "non scientific" non-factual (ahemmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.) notion to a group of ninth graders. Make them suffer through the knowledge that their science books may just be a big old pack of observations that may be totally fucking meaningless in "the grand scheme of things". It has never been taught separately until this century -Science and Philosophy that is. What thinks you, defining IWETHEY Hubris annointer?
[link|http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html|http://www.ucmp.berk...istory/paley.html]
In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. . . The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid.Does anyone here understand that Philosophy has had intelligent design since Aristotle ([link|http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm|http://www.abu.nb.ca...Rel/Aristotle.htm])?
To wit, I have been laughing my freaking arse off at the conjecture about the hurricanes. 30 years or us? We have solid data for about the last 100/200 years (out of how many billion?) It's possible to extrapolate something "meaningful" from that sample. Right? Well, we seem to think it is... Let's go back to that low to the ground heavy alligator. He might be a good argument for adaptation. Or he might have been designed to keep the swamps free of birds and mammals.
FWIW, I find the "factual" science textbooks that I have seen devoid of any thinking, just rote memorization of a bunch of neatly tied together concepts. I say make our kids think. Ask them "who created God" as an intro to Philosophy and Science.