"Truth ultimately resides in the collective judgment of people who are committed to consensus and consistency," answers physics professor Alan Cromer in Uncommon Sense, a book about the scientific method. The axiom here is that man can never judge what is true at the macrocosmic level. Macrocosmic data must be reduced to the mesocosmic level (ie - greater objectivity expressed through human discourse is actually human subjectivity)

In other words, if we want knowledge of the universe, we have to humble ourselves before society. As Cromer argues, "Science, like democratic politics, is a social activity." He calls science "an extension of rhetoric." Only by the democratic exchange of viewpoints through the medium of language can we arrive at a unified understanding of our diverse experiences. Society crowns as the winner the best argument emerging from that exchange. But though the winning argument is crowned "truth," social judgment hardly insures that truth is crowned the winning argument. History repeatedly shows the scientific community handing the crown to an untrue argument.

Up until the year 1800, it was the collective judgment of scientists that rocks do not fall from the sky. In 1768, a good number of French villagers witnessed a meteor crash to earth in their locale. Where it landed, there, for all to see, was a rock from sky. But member of the French Academy of Sciences Antoine Lavosier, having arrived four years later to investigate, argued that the stone was always on the ground, and that the villagers had only witnessed a thunderbolt strike it. The scientific community crowned his argument the winner.

In spite of such lapses in their own knowledge, the scientific community presumes to decide for the rest of the world what is and isn't valid knowledge: evolution is, creationism isn't; reductionism is, vitalism isn't; naturalism is, supernaturalism isn't. And why? Evolution, reductionism and naturalism are faithful servants of economic determinism.

Like blinders that a farmer puts on the head of a workhorse so that the animal will pull its load straight ahead without distraction, these "truths" help fix the public mind on economic development as the only goal of life. What is good for the economy is good for science.

Yet the public isn't buying into scientific "truths" like it used to. For example, while scientists overwhelmingly agree that once a year the earth revolves around the sun, less than fifty percent of the adult population of the United States acknowledges that to be true. Books like Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark evince the dismay of leading scientists at the common man's diminishing respect for so-called scientific facts.

It gets worse: this diminishing respect can be linked to a widespread suspicion that top scientists are involved in some kind of worldwide plot to deceive the public. Hollywood panders to this paranoia with hugely successful films and TV series (The X-Files, Conspiracy Theory, Men in Black). Is it all just showbiz and mass delusion? Well, even scientists testify there's something to worry about. In 1996, a nuclear physicist published a book documenting the existence of MJ-12, a secret council on UFOs formed in 1947 by top US scientists, government experts and military brass. Also in 1996, a microbiologist published a book documenting how the official dogma about AIDS is a lie. There is no proof that the HIV virus causes AIDS.

It is beside the point how factual such accusations really are. The point is that such accusations are the subject of movies, documentaries, news programs, network specials, newspaper stories, magazine covers, talk shows, seminars, Internet chatter and tabloid fantasies. This proves that society is far from convinced that science--at least the high-level government-funded kind of science--is open, democratic and thus "socially" truthful.

Even if the grand conspiracy theories are questionable, that does not make "normal" science trustworthy. In 1995, the British Library Science Reference and Information Service published a documented review of the social origins of fraud in science. Polls of the scientific community taken by New Scientist magazine (1976 and 1987), the British Medical Journal (1988), the Society of University Surgeons (1989), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1992), American Scientist magazine (1993), and the journal Science, Technology and Human Values (1994) report that cheating (falsification and manipulation of data) and plagiarism are alarmingly common among professionals. Five main causes of fraud were identified: personality factors, the pressure to publish, the academic rat race, commercialism, and pressure from sponsors. Without these five, there surely could be no social activity in science. Yet when asked, scientists admit each breeds ruthlessness, dishonesty and stonewalling.

In such a state of affairs, is the “truth“ of science merely another limb of social perspective?

In spite of such lapses in their own knowledge, the scientific community presumes to decide for the rest of the world what is and isn't valid knowledge: evolution is, creationism isn't; reductionism is, vitalism isn't; naturalism is, supernaturalism isn't. And why? Evolution, reductionism and naturalism are faithful servants of economic determinism.

The author makes a false comparison between these things and his meteor example. In the meteor example, there was nothing to say that rocks could not possibly fall from the sky.

In contrast, there are mountains of evidence directly contradicting creationist, for example, and directly supporting evolution.

The choice to support evolution over creationism has nothing to do with "economic determinism". It has everything to do with the balance of evidence.

The author makes a false comparison between these things and his meteor example. In the meteor example, there was nothing to say that rocks could not possibly fall from the sky.
there was the french academy of sciences

In contrast, there are mountains of evidence directly contradicting creationist, for example, and directly supporting evolution.
the next question is whether "creationsim" is the only valid alternative (how about ID)?

The choice to support evolution over creationism has nothing to do with "economic determinism". It has everything to do with the balance of evidence.
same name, different academy ....

[QUOTE]The author makes a false comparison between these things and his meteor example. In the meteor example, there was nothing to say that rocks could not possibly fall from the sky. But many things poo pooed by the scientific community do not necessarily contradict current science knowledge: ghosts, esp, the existence of god, remote viewing and so on.

In contrast, there are mountains of evidence directly contradicting creationist, for example, and directly supporting evolution.

christian creationism runs into problems, but that the universe was created by god has actually received support. One of the old arguments against creationism was that scientists thought the universe had always been here. The Big Bang (while certainly not a shred of proof about God) took one of the problems facing creationists out of the way. That the earth is 6,000 years old and other silliness is something the fundies can defend. I have no interest in that. But let's not 1) mistake fundies for all thiests and 2) not forget how much scientists and actually more commonly rationalists assume they can predict the liklihood of certain phenomena given current science and technology.

"Truth ultimately resides in the collective judgment of people who are committed to consensus and consistency," answers physics professor Alan Cromer in Uncommon Sense, a book about the scientific method.

Sounds like nonsense to me. Reality doesn't care about people so consensus is irrelevant. Scientists that consider social bullshit more important than reality are dummies.

psik

Sounds like nonsense to me. Reality doesn't care about people so consensus is irrelevant. Scientists that consider social bullshit more important than reality are dummies.

psik

hence near the end of the post

Even if the grand conspiracy theories are questionable, that does not make "normal" science trustworthy. In 1995, the British Library Science Reference and Information Service published a documented review of the social origins of fraud in science. Polls of the scientific community taken by New Scientist magazine (1976 and 1987), the British Medical Journal (1988), the Society of University Surgeons (1989), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1992), American Scientist magazine (1993), and the journal Science, Technology and Human Values (1994) report that cheating (falsification and manipulation of data) and plagiarism are alarmingly common among professionals. Five main causes of fraud were identified: personality factors, the pressure to publish, the academic rat race, commercialism, and pressure from sponsors. Without these five, there surely could be no social activity in science. Yet when asked, scientists admit each breeds ruthlessness, dishonesty and stonewalling.

the next question is whether "creationsim" is the only valid alternative (how about ID)?

They are one and the same.

They are one and the same.
at the very least, there are separate wiki entries for both ...

at the very least, there are separate wiki entries for both ...

Yes, the alphabet works that way. :rolleyes:

Creationism begins with a 'C' and Intelligent Design begins with an 'I' if you hadn't already noticed.

You may also find taxi and cab to have separate entries, as well. :D

Yes, the alphabet works that way.

Creationism begins with a 'C' and Intelligent Design begins with an 'I' if you hadn't already noticed.

You may also find taxi and cab to have separate entries, as well. :D

super sleuth Q is hot on the trail
:D

I guess next we'll have to see what the different posts say .....

How about we examine the introducing paragraph of each entry?

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to rejection of evolution.

and

Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3][4] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be God.[7] Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory,[8] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[9]


:shrug:

super sleuth Q is hot on the trail
:D

I guess next we'll have to see what the different posts say .....

How about we examine the introducing paragraph of each entry?

So, not only are you unaware of the concept of entries based on the alphabet, but you appear not to be aware that a concept can be explained using different words.

Oh well... :rolleyes:

lightgigantic:

The marvellous thing about science is that it is self-correcting. So, the French Academie of Science got it wrong, did they? It didn't matter for long, did it? Science corrected the error and moved on. Ask any member of the French academie of Sciences these days whether meteors exist, and they'll be in absolute agreement on the matter; the "official" position has changed.

For a contrast, look at how the Creationists have reacted to scientific findings that refute their silly claims. Have they given ground on anything at all? No, they have not. They've closed their eyes and stuck their heads in the sand.

Has the position of the Discovery Institute changed following scientific objections to the theory of Intelligent Design? Not one bit.

But many things poo pooed by the scientific community do not necessarily contradict current science knowledge: ghosts, esp, the existence of god, remote viewing and so on.

Correct. But some of those things are unscientific in that they are not amenable to scientific investigation. For others, all the purported "evidence" is weak and unreliable.

lightgigantic:

The marvellous thing about science is that it is self-correcting. So, the French Academie of Science got it wrong, did they? It didn't matter for long, did it? Science corrected the error and moved on. Ask any member of the French academie of Sciences these days whether meteors exist, and they'll be in absolute agreement on the matter; the "official" position has changed.
thus one social consensus is forfeited for another
Its not clear whether you are trying to suggest that such a process makes it more "reliable" or "accurate"



For a contrast, look at how the Creationists have reacted to scientific findings that refute their silly claims. Have they given ground on anything at all? No, they have not. They've closed their eyes and stuck their heads in the sand.

Has the position of the Discovery Institute changed following scientific objections to the theory of Intelligent Design? Not one bit.
it just reflects the dominant paradigm

So, not only are you unaware of the concept of entries based on the alphabet, but you appear not to be aware that a concept can be explained using different words.

Oh well... :rolleyes:
Interesting
One suggests that universal creation took place 6000 years ago and the other only has the stipulation that it was created by intelligence - yet somehow these definitions are identical.

Please tell me you don't professionally work in any field that deals with analytics ....

Originally Posted by James Rlightgigantic:

The marvellous thing about science is that it is self-correcting. So, the French Academie of Science got it wrong, did they? It didn't matter for long, did it? Science corrected the error and moved on. Ask any member of the French academie of Sciences these days whether meteors exist, and they'll be in absolute agreement on the matter; the "official" position has changed.

thus one social consensus is forfeited for another
Its not clear whether you are trying to suggest that such a process makes it more "reliable" or "accurate" ...



The supposed "self-correcting" aspect of science is hailed by those who place their faith in science.

But how efficient is science as a self-correcting mechanism? What is the "batting average" of science in this area? Out of the total number of mistakes made in science, how many have been corrected?

There is no way of knowing the total number of mistakes made in the history of science. Nor do we know how many uncorrected errors exist in science today. If we knew about them, they would be corrected. Hence, it is impossible to know how efficient this self-correcting element in science is.

But if there is no way to determine its effectiveness, then we can never know if trusting science to lead us into truth is a very wise worldview or a very foolish one.

thus one social consensus is forfeited for another

Yes, but it isn't the social consensus that matters here. It's the scientific consensus.

Its not clear whether you are trying to suggest that such a process makes it more "reliable" or "accurate"

The proof is in the pudding. Demonstrably, science works. Creationism, to take one example, does not.

it just reflects the dominant paradigm

Is there anything in your opinion that does not simply reflect a "dominant paradigm"? Are you a complete relativist?

Out of the total number of mistakes made in science, how many have been corrected?

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are the known knowns, then the unknown knowns, and the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

JamesR

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
thus one social consensus is forfeited for another
”
Yes, but it isn't the social consensus that matters here. It's the scientific consensus.
and if that consensus is socially defined, why should it matter as much as you think it should?

“
Its not clear whether you are trying to suggest that such a process makes it more "reliable" or "accurate"
”
The proof is in the pudding. Demonstrably, science works. Creationism, to take one example, does not.
its not clear what body of work you are drawing upon to suggest that "evolution works"

“
it just reflects the dominant paradigm
”
Is there anything in your opinion that does not simply reflect a "dominant paradigm"? Are you a complete relativist?
for an empiricist (such as yourself) , who's foundation is the (subjective) senses, there is no other option except relativity

Originally posted by Nutter
Out of the total number of mistakes made in science, how many have been corrected?

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are the known knowns, then the unknown knowns, and the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.


And to quote Nutter, "But if there is no way to determine its effectiveness, then we can never know if trusting science to lead us into truth is a very wise worldview or a very foolish one."

Be of good cheer.

lightgigantic:

and if that consensus is socially defined, why should it matter as much as you think it should?

All consensus is socially defined, is it not? All consensus involves people agreeing with each other, by definition.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

its not clear what body of work you are drawing upon to suggest that "evolution works"

It's called science.

for an empiricist (such as yourself) , who's foundation is the (subjective) senses, there is no other option except relativity

Empiricism is objective, not subjective. That's the idea, anyway.

Correct. But some of those things are unscientific in that they are not amenable to scientific investigation. For others, all the purported "evidence" is weak and unreliable.

Not amenable at this point, given our current technological abilities or the allocation of what technology we have.

That the evidence is weak and unreliable does not mean that scientists have a handle on how likely these phenomena are to be real or to be correctly interpreted by experiencers. My point was not that there is proof - for non-experiencers - but that the process of assuming on can guess liklihoods does nto take into account the history of science itself and is based on guesswork.

JamesR



All consensus is socially defined, is it not? All consensus involves people agreeing with each other, by definition.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.
to begin with, it becomes difficult to reconcile with your closing statement

Empiricism is objective, not subjective. That's the idea, anyway




It's called science.
given that the wider framework of evolution is incapable of being tested, its not clear what particular aspect of science you are calling on to say that "evolution works" anymore than say twenty years ago when it might have been perfectly alright to say "the big bang works"

Interesting
One suggests that universal creation took place 6000 years ago and the other only has the stipulation that it was created by intelligence - yet somehow these definitions are identical.

Both are creationism, isn't that identical?

Both are creationism, isn't that identical?
both water and petrol are liquids
does that make them identical?
:rolleyes:

Grantywanty:

That the evidence is weak and unreliable does not mean that scientists have a handle on how likely these phenomena are to be real or to be correctly interpreted by experiencers. My point was not that there is proof - for non-experiencers - but that the process of assuming on can guess liklihoods does nto take into account the history of science itself and is based on guesswork.

Take the existence of ghosts, for example.

People have claimed to have seen ghosts for hundreds of years now. Yet, there is still not one bit of convincing evidence that they are real, despite the occasional fuzzy photograph.

On the other hand, the science of psychology gives us quite a few reasons why some people may invent ghosts, even though they do not exist.

Yet you still claim that the preponderance of evidence on this cannot give us any idea at all about how likely it is that ghosts are real?

What makes you think the investigatory process here should be any different from any other phenomenon? And what makes you think the conclusions of science will be lest trustworthy in the case of ghosts compared to, say, the existence of ball lightning?

Take the existence of ghosts, for example.

People have claimed to have seen ghosts for hundreds of years now. Yet, there is still not one bit of convincing evidence that they are real, despite the occasional fuzzy photograph.

On the other hand, the science of psychology gives us quite a few reasons why some people may invent ghosts, even though they do not exist.

Rogue waves which I spoke about on the Non-material consciousness thread is an example where psychological theories bolstered scientists dismissal of a phenomenon that later, after technology improved, turned out to be real and correctly interpreted and estimated by sailors. The psychological theories gave them reasons why some people would be wildly overestimating these waves. It was a rational, but incorrect, dismissal of the existence of something that did not fit with current oceanographic and fluid mechanics theories.

Yet you still claim that the preponderance of evidence on this cannot give us any idea at all about how likely it is that ghosts are real?

There is not a prepoderance of evidence that they are not real. Just as there was not a preponderance of evidence that Rogue Waves were real. It was a new phenomonenon judged as extremely unlikely because it did not fit current theories. Period.


What makes you think the investigatory process here should be any different from any other phenomenon? And what makes you think the conclusions of science will be lest trustworthy in the case of ghosts compared to, say, the existence of ball lightning?

I have never suggested the investigatory process should be different. However, it is a fact that people have experienced phenomena in the past that could not be proven by non-experiencers - due to technology, lack of interest, conflicts with current theories, etc. - that turned out later to be true. For people who have certain experiences it has been and will continue to be rational to believe in certain things that science has not yet proven true or correctly interpreted. As stated on other threads scientists positions on whether we can know animals have emotions, intentions and consciousness has shifted completely in the last 40 years. You could lose your career for 'anthropomorphizing'. (following Descartes and other mad solipsists) The field shifted and now this is OK to do. Here again, those who believed animals were similar to us in these ways were correct despite not having the tools - or in most cases the interest - in proving this.

I doubt any scientist has taken an official, journal form position on the existence of ghosts.

Scientists should not draw a conclusion on ghosts. And they should not assume they can judge the likelihood, unless they want to base their claims on intuition. A door I doubt they want to open.

Another example that was poo pooed by scientists and judged extremely unlikely was the ability of certain meditators to control parts of their body and body systems thought completely involuntary. They did in this case investigate and technology was adequate to prove that their dismissals were incorrect. There are many other examples of this pattern, also between scientists, some of whom have made theories that could only be double blind tested or tested in some other form much later in time.

Humility should be the order of the day.

And as always I note that rationalists tend to treat
what is rational for me as an experiencer to believe
what counts as proof for others
as the same thing.

They assume that if I cannot prove it to them, I must be irrational in my belief. This is false as shown by the examples above and by many other examples.

I can be rational in a belief and correct and yet not be able to prove it scientifically.

I have to say I get angry that the category is not acknowledged by rationalists.
(that is the best term I can come up with. In the history of philsophy it has a more specific meaning. And hell I beleive I am rational.)

I don't know how to make this any clearer so I will step out of the debate because I am tired of reshashing this point.

Grantywanty:

Rogue waves which I spoke about on the Non-material consciousness thread is an example where psychological theories bolstered scientists dismissal of a phenomenon that later, after technology improved, turned out to be real and correctly interpreted and estimated by sailors. The psychological theories gave them reasons why some people would be wildly overestimating these waves. It was a rational, but incorrect, dismissal of the existence of something that did not fit with current oceanographic and fluid mechanics theories.

This sounds like another example of science correcting itself.

But I wonder: how many oceanographers made definitive statements saying that rogue waves could not exist? Any?

For people who have certain experiences it has been and will continue to be rational to believe in certain things that science has not yet proven true or correctly interpreted.

The problem here is that people tend to give far more credence to their subjective experiences than is always wise. Thus, delusions and hallucinations come to be accepted as real.

Scientists should not draw a conclusion on ghosts. And they should not assume they can judge the likelihood, unless they want to base their claims on intuition.

I see no reason why ghosts should be put into a separate category immune from scientific investigation.

The fact is, scientists have investigated ghosts - many of them. They have spent time in so-called haunted houses. They have looked into the fuzzy photos. They have checked information supposedly imparted by ghosts to living people. They have used electromagnetic detectors, heat detectors, etc. etc.

And so far, what is the provisional conclusion of all these scientific investigators? No evidence of ghosts.

At the very least, I would say the onus is on those who believe in ghosts to produce some evidence that they exist. But for some reason, you think the question is beyond science. You think the default position should be to believe that ghosts exists until it is proven otherwise. Seems like an enormous waste of time to me. We might as well believe in merry-go-rounds falling from the sky.

People have claimed to have seen ghosts for hundreds of years now. Yet, there is still not one bit of convincing evidence that they are real,

James R,

Ghosts are momento mori - reminders that we will die.

Death is more real than life.

DeepThought:

I don't know what it means for something to be "more real" than something else. Either something is real, or it isn't. Isn't it?

DeepThought:

I don't know what it means for something to be "more real" than something else. Either something is real, or it isn't. Isn't it?

no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology)

Ontology is a study of conceptions of reality and the nature of being. In philosophy, ontology (from the Greek ὤν, genitive ὄντος: of being (part. of εἶναι: to be) and -λογία: science, study, theory) is the study of being or existence and forms the basic subject matter of metaphysics. It seeks to describe or posit the basic categories and relationships of being or existence to define entities and types of entities within its framework

I know what ontology is.

So, you are positing at least three categories of things:

1. real things.
2. unreal things.
3. more-real-than-real things.

Correct?

How do you distinguish 1 from 3?

I know what ontology is.

So, you are positing at least three categories of things:

1. real things.
2. unreal things.
3. more-real-than-real things.

Correct?
not quite


apparent or contingent things
unreal things
real things


How do you distinguish 1 from 3?
in short, discerning it's actual nature

Cool, 2,500 years of philosophy and some people still havn't changed.

Both are creationism, isn't that identical?This is why I prefer the term "evolution denial" or "evolution denialism." It is more specific. Creationism, in its customary narrow definition, denies evolution. ID does not. ID merely denies abiogenesis, which is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution explains how one species evolves into another, not how the first one was formed.

Creationism can be called evolution denialism and is an antiscientific hypothesis. It is an extraordinary assertion without extraordinary substantiation, and in various guises it also embraces numerous other violations of the scientific method.

Intelligent design is merely an unscientific hypothesis. It depends on an unobservable supernatural universe, whereas science restricts itself to the observable natural universe. Scientific theories or hypotheses must be falsifiable by empirical observation or logical deduction, and ID cannot be falsified by either method.

On the other hand, if abiogenesis is ever performed in a laboratory, it will constitute empirical evidence against ID. Occam's Razor, another component of the scientific method, demands: If life could have arisen this way, a simple way that we understand and can duplicate, then why should we examine a much more complicated explanation? Note that Occam does not say that the simpler explanation has been proven to be the correct one, a common misinterpretation of his writing. It simply turns the complicated explanation into an extraordinary assertion, which we are not obliged to take seriously until extraordinary substantiation is provided. Since supernatural theories by definition provide no substantiation, this one will be discarded. There will always be a small probability that abiogenesis, even when its secret is unlocked, will be found not to be the mechanism by which life first arose. But this will still not elevate ID to the status of a scientific theory and we will continue to look for other, scientific explanations.

As for the French and their meteor, it appears that the scientific method was followed, to the best of the ability of the scientists of the day given the available technology. If several years passed before a credentialed scientist was brought in to examine the alleged meteorite, the possibility of fraud or at least mischief can hardly be discarded. The theory that rocks do not fall from the sky was based on empirical observation and was valid. Note that validity does not equal truth, as scientific theories, unlike mathematical theories, can never be proven true. This theory was accepted as "true beyond a reasonable doubt"--the best any theory can achieve--and had been integrated into the scientific canon. The assertion that a well-established theory backed by lots of empirical observation is false is an extraordinary assertion. An ordinary-looking rock that some villagers claim fell from the sky four years ago is hardly extraordinary substantiation.

Science must be conservative and place a heavy burden on theories that cause major changes to it. It's one thing to have to correct a theory that has been accepted for hundreds of years. It's quite another to correct one that overturned a major scientific discipline like astronomy, and then have to put it all back together the right way. This will cause much more suspicion and disrespect for science among laymen than simply demanding more evidence for a controversial assertion.

As a previous post pointed out, the existence of meteors was eventually accepted. How much worse would science appear, in an alternative universe in which meteors are not real, if that evidence had been accepted, we had spent a couple of centuries building a cosmology based on the existence of meteors, and then today's sophisticated instruments discovered that the rock was identical to those found in a little-known quarry twenty miles from the village?

This is why I prefer the term "evolution denial" or "evolution denialism." It is more specific. Creationism, in its customary narrow definition, denies evolution. ID does not. ID merely denies abiogenesis, which is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution explains how one species evolves into another, not how the first one was formed.


I'm afraid not. Id denies evolution, and doesn't deny evolution. Willami Dembski recently admitted that he didn't agree with common descent of apes and humans, yet Behe thinks apes and humans are of common descent. Many ID followers think that humans are special and were created by {insert deity of choice}. I am afraid that you are treating the ID/ creationist movement as if they are serious, when in fact they have as much coherence as 17th century hermeticism.


Creationism can be called evolution denialism and is an antiscientific hypothesis. It is an extraordinary assertion without extraordinary substantiation, and in various guises it also embraces numerous other violations of the scientific method.

In that respect so can ID, because of the way that it manages to avoid making specific scientifically testable predictions and experiments. Note also that Behe's mousetrap and Dembskis probability bounds etc fall into the same category.

Many ID followers think that humans are special and were created by {insert deity of choice}.Yes, but many do not. There are a lot of people who find the theory of evolution to be perfectly reasonable and simply ask us for an equally reasonable theory to explain the first lifeform. All we can offer is the "theory" of abiogenesis, which is not a theory at all because it is not based on empirical observation. It is simply a statement that living matter arose from non-living matter and we'll have to get back to you later on some of the major details. Until we provide empirical observation by performing abiogenesis in the laboratory, or until we find fossil evidence of intermediate forms of matter bridging the gap between not-alive and alive, or until we can state the physical and chemical conditions under which abiogenesis will occur even if we can't quite create them without a lab on Mars, our hypothesis is not a theory and the origin of life remains a mystery. The only thing that elevates our hypothesis above ID is that we won't rest until it is supported by the scientific method, whereas they already rest with nothing more than the archetypal instincts for belief in the supernatural that were hard-wired into their midbrain by the very process of evolution they gainsay.I am afraid that you are treating the ID/ creationist movement as if they are serious, when in fact they have as much coherence as 17th century hermeticism.I have personally encountered a substantive difference between many proponents of ID-as-opposed-to-abiogenesis and all proponents of creationism-as-opposed-to-evolution. In my experience the former are worthy of a modicum of respect, and the latter are not.In that respect so can ID, because of the way that it manages to avoid making specific scientifically testable predictions and experiments.In my paradigm, failure to conform to the scientific method is not the same as violating it. Saying, "You've got nothing so there's no reason I can't believe in ID," is one thing. "Proving" creationism by carefully sifting evidence for supportive bits, citing papers from third-rate universities as "peer reviewed," and peppering a speech with scientific-sounding rhetoric to win the audience's confidence over a typical not-very-articulate real scientist... is fraud.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are the known knowns, then the unknown knowns, and the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

Reminds me of the Jesus and Mo cartoon today. :)

http://jesusandmo.net/strips/2007-09-27.jpg

This is why I prefer the term "evolution denial" or "evolution denialism." It is more specific. Creationism, in its customary narrow definition, denies evolution. ID does not. ID merely denies abiogenesis, which is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution explains how one species evolves into another, not how the first one was formed.

"In the 1990s the term "intelligent design" was increasingly used by advocates of teaching a creation-based alternative to evolution, particularly in the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

It would appear that ID attempts to supplant evolution, hence it most likely denies it.

Perhaps it is Theistic Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) you refer?

Fragglerocker
“
Originally Posted by (Q)
Both are creationism, isn't that identical?
”
This is why I prefer the term "evolution denial" or "evolution denialism." It is more specific. Creationism, in its customary narrow definition, denies evolution. ID does not. ID merely denies abiogenesis, which is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution explains how one species evolves into another, not how the first one was formed.


Creationism can be called evolution denialism and is an antiscientific hypothesis. It is an extraordinary assertion without extraordinary substantiation, and in various guises it also embraces numerous other violations of the scientific method.


Intelligent design is merely an unscientific hypothesis. It depends on an unobservable supernatural universe, whereas science restricts itself to the observable natural universe. Scientific theories or hypotheses must be falsifiable by empirical observation or logical deduction, and ID cannot be falsified by either method.
given that abiogenesis and macro evolution are also not falsifiable by empirical observation and are dependent on something unobservable, its not clear why you make the distinction

On the other hand, if abiogenesis is ever performed in a laboratory, it will constitute empirical evidence against ID. Occam's Razor, another component of the scientific method, demands: If life could have arisen this way, a simple way that we understand and can duplicate, then why should we examine a much more complicated explanation?
and in the absence of abiogenesis being performed in a laboratory, what do you have?
:shrug:

Note that Occam does not say that the simpler explanation has been proven to be the correct one, a common misinterpretation of his writing. It simply turns the complicated explanation into an extraordinary assertion, which we are not obliged to take seriously until extraordinary substantiation is provided.
and claiming that life evolved from matter is not extraordinary?

Since supernatural theories by definition provide no substantiation, this one will be discarded. There will always be a small probability that abiogenesis, even when its secret is unlocked, will be found not to be the mechanism by which life first arose.
given that empiricism deals with the nature of things as the exist at the present, its not clear what gives you the license to boldly spout forth of the future (it certainly sounds supernatural)

But this will still not elevate ID to the status of a scientific theory and we will continue to look for other, scientific explanations.
specifically looking for evidence to direct one towards a particular theory, rather than merely looking at the evidence, is how type I errors occur

As for the French and their meteor, it appears that the scientific method was followed, to the best of the ability of the scientists of the day given the available technology. If several years passed before a credentialed scientist was brought in to examine the alleged meteorite, the possibility of fraud or at least mischief can hardly be discarded. The theory that rocks do not fall from the sky was based on empirical observation and was valid. Note that validity does not equal truth, as scientific theories, unlike mathematical theories, can never be proven true. This theory was accepted as "true beyond a reasonable doubt"--the best any theory can achieve--and had been integrated into the scientific canon. The assertion that a well-established theory backed by lots of empirical observation is false is an extraordinary assertion. An ordinary-looking rock that some villagers claim fell from the sky four years ago is hardly extraordinary substantiation.
such is the folly of accepting empiricism as the ultimate standard for discerning "validity" since it ultimately boils down to subjective consensus ....

Science must be conservative and place a heavy burden on theories that cause major changes to it. It's one thing to have to correct a theory that has been accepted for hundreds of years. It's quite another to correct one that overturned a major scientific discipline like astronomy, and then have to put it all back together the right way. This will cause much more suspicion and disrespect for science among laymen than simply demanding more evidence for a controversial assertion.
thus once an untruthful empirical assertion has weaseled its way into the mechanics of popular science, it can take hundreds of years to expel it - simply due to the social environment that empiricism thrives in

As a previous post pointed out, the existence of meteors was eventually accepted. How much worse would science appear, in an alternative universe in which meteors are not real, if that evidence had been accepted, we had spent a couple of centuries building a cosmology based on the existence of meteors, and then today's sophisticated instruments discovered that the rock was identical to those found in a little-known quarry twenty miles from the village?
I guess such a regrettable situation could be avoided if empiricists had the the humility to say "we don't know" as opposed to "that is wrong"

Given that abiogenesis and macro evolution are also not falsifiable by empirical observation and are dependent on something unobservable, its not clear why you make the distinction.You misquoted me. "Falsifiable by empirical observation or logical reasoning" was the complete quote. Macroevolution certainly has logical deduction going for it. The progression of the human embryo from a one-celled organism, through several identifiable and still-extant phyla and classes, into an individual of the species Homo sapiens, in only nine months, puts the burden of proof on the person who claims it could not have happened in three billion years.

Religion-based theories are derived from faith, not reason and empirical observation. By not being falsifiable they place themselves outside science. This in itself does not necessarily justify disrespect. What justifies disrespect is the position of some of their proponents, that their theories, which are based entirely on archetypes--instincts--justify disrespect for scientific theories, which are a key element in mankind's elevation above the level of instinctive belief and behavior.and in the absence of abiogenesis being performed in a laboratory, what do you have?A hypothesis and I've never claimed otherwise. However, it is a hypothesis that respects science by confining itself to the natural world and awaiting the necessary empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning. Religious theories pull us back into our Mesolithic ancestry when much of what we thought we "knew" were merely preprogrammed synapses like faith.and claiming that life evolved from matter is not extraordinary?Living creatures are made of matter. I don't understand your question. What else is there in the natural world for them to have evolved from? Throwing up your hands and saying, "I don't know the answer to that question, so there must be a supernatural world to account for everything we can't understand," is not science, and it's the attitude that keeps us still with one foot in the Stone Age.Given that empiricism deals with the nature of things as the exist at the present, its not clear what gives you the license to boldly spout forth of the future (it certainly sounds supernatural)Apparently my rhetoric is weak. That was meant to be within the hypothetical scenario of unlocking the secret to abiogenesis, not a prediction. I have often said that we may have to wait until we discover another life-bearing planet before we have enough data to test and peer-review the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Unless there are more gaps in our understanding of physics than appear to remain, at relativistic speeds that could be a half-million-year search.Such is the folly of accepting empiricism as the ultimate standard for discerning "validity" since it ultimately boils down to subjective consensus.We increasingly utilize instruments, recordings, double-blinds, etc., which reduce the subjectivity. The scientific method was established long ago, but the techniques of scientific research continue to advance. The French scientist in the example, for all his faults, was a better scientist than those of Galileo's era, we are better scientists than he was, and those of the next century will be better than us. What comparable improvements have been made in the belief systems that contradict science?

As we continue to discover more "truths beyond a reasonable doubt" about the way the natural universe works, and only a small portion of those quasi-truths are ever disproven, leading us inexorably to a fuller understanding of that universe, all we ever hear in rebuttal is the argument from the Stone Age: "There is stuff we don't understand, and so there must be another universe we can never observe to account for it all. You have permission to believe this without evidence or reason because you feel the 'truth' of this instinctively. You should give in to your primitive midbrain and allow your instincts to override your reason."Thus once an untruthful empirical assertion has weaseled its way into the mechanics of popular science, it can take hundreds of years to expel it - simply due to the social environment that empiricism thrives in.Yes, empiricism has its flaws, but at least errors are ultimately corrected. What alternative do you propose to empiricism that provides a faster track for discovering how the natural universe works? How are belief systems that are not based on reasoning and observation ever corrected?I guess such a regrettable situation could be avoided if empiricists had the the humility to say "we don't know" as opposed to "that is wrong""The most fundamental statement in science--indeed the basis for all science--is, "I don't know." -- Lt. Commander Data, "Star Trek: The Next Generation"

My wife says that men invent religions so we never have to say, "I don't know." Perhaps all science needs to get over these occasional expressions of hubris are a few more female scientists. :)

Yes, but many do not. There are a lot of people who find the theory of evolution to be perfectly reasonable and simply ask us for an equally reasonable theory to explain the first lifeform. All we can offer is the "theory" of abiogenesis, which is not a theory at all because it is not based on empirical observation.
*BZZZZZZZ*
PLease read TAlkorigins for the various scientific theories of Abiogenesis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

As for people who find evolution acceptable but have trouble with abiogenesis, that is their problem. That is also why you have to decide whether ID is an anti-evolution "science" or an anti-abiogenesis "Science". As Q has already pointed out, "Intelligent DEsign" arose after the last court case in the 80's which threw out Creation science as acceptable to teach in schools.
Have a look at this as well:
http://talkdesign.org/cs/td_faq
A faq on intelligent design.

I think your confusion comes from attributing sense, scientific ability and intelligence to creationists/ ID'ers, but in reality they have never adequately defined their monstrous creations such that we can discuss them rationally.



Yes, the precise origin of life remains a mystery. However, the ID'ers claim everything from "God did it" to, well, "Aliens did it and ran away".


I have personally encountered a substantive difference between many proponents of ID-as-opposed-to-abiogenesis and all proponents of creationism-as-opposed-to-evolution. In my experience the former are worthy of a modicum of respect, and the latter are not.In my paradigm, failure to conform to the scientific method is not the same as violating it. Saying, "You've got nothing so there's no reason I can't believe in ID," is one thing. "Proving" creationism by carefully sifting evidence for supportive bits, citing papers from third-rate universities as "peer reviewed," and peppering a speech with scientific-sounding rhetoric to win the audience's confidence over a typical not-very-articulate real scientist... is fraud.
Unfortunately, your last sentence is precisely what prominent ID'ers do every day.
For example:
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/09/luskins_latest_lie.php

Fragglerocker

Originally Posted by lightgigantic

Given that abiogenesis and macro evolution are also not falsifiable by empirical observation and are dependent on something unobservable, its not clear why you make the distinction.
”
You misquoted me. "Falsifiable by empirical observation or logical reasoning" was the complete quote. Macroevolution certainly has logical deduction going for it. The progression of the human embryo from a one-celled organism, through several identifiable and still-extant phyla and classes, into an individual of the species Homo sapiens, in only nine months, puts the burden of proof on the person who claims it could not have happened in three billion years.
logic only works when no other logical option is tenable - as such it makes for a pretty weak case for a claim (just examine philosophy if you don't believe me)
This is why science primarily deals with empiricism first and rationalism second - the more science tries to switch these around, the slimmer the consensus on the claims (eg - quantum physics)

anyway, its probably not a correct use of language to ask for a burden of proof that simply works with issues of logic, but since you did, here's one :-

all species of life are made from several "blue prints" which are slightly modified according to the desire of the designer
(after all, its not uncommon to see a variety of car designs)

Religion-based theories are derived from faith, not reason and empirical observation.
actually religious based claims are derived from the direct perception of saintly people - for persons who are outside the qualification of such direct perception, they have no alternative but to accept (or reject) such claims on faith, much like a person who has no qualification in science has no alternative but to accept (or reject) such claims on faith

By not being falsifiable they place themselves outside science.
since there is no one in the position of direct perception of macro-evolution, on what grounds would you deem it falsifiable?

This in itself does not necessarily justify disrespect. What justifies disrespect is the position of some of their proponents, that their theories, which are based entirely on archetypes--instincts--justify disrespect for scientific theories, which are a key element in mankind's elevation above the level of instinctive belief and behavior.
if you have at your foundation claims that are not falsifiable, its not clear why challenging such claims from a different angle warrants disrespect

“
and in the absence of abiogenesis being performed in a laboratory, what do you have?
”
A hypothesis and I've never claimed otherwise. However, it is a hypothesis that respects science by confining itself to the natural world
what is the "natural world" but an idea based on archetypes --instincts --?
(at a guess I would say your instinct is that all phenomena can be reduced to a form knowable by our gross senses )

If you want to slot something into such an archetypal model that no one has verified, how is that congruent to the "natural" picture of things

and awaiting the necessary empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning.
kind of like giving a post dated cheque in a business deal?

Religious theories pull us back into our Mesolithic ancestry when much of what we thought we "knew" were merely preprogrammed synapses like faith.
given the opening para of the OP

"Truth ultimately resides in the collective judgment of people who are committed to consensus and consistency," answers physics professor Alan Cromer in Uncommon Sense, a book about the scientific method. The axiom here is that man can never judge what is true at the macrocosmic level. Macrocosmic data must be reduced to the mesocosmic level (ie - greater objectivity expressed through human discourse is actually human subjectivity)

it appears that your notion of advancement is an imagination
“
and claiming that life evolved from matter is not extraordinary?
”
Living creatures are made of matter.
so are dead things

I don't understand your question.
life is seen to come from life
despite billions of dollars being funded to suggest otherwise it still remains the case
if you want to argue that life comes from matter (matter that is not alive) it remains an extraordinary claim
(and puh-leeze no post dated cheques)

What else is there in the natural world for them to have evolved from?
erm - life

Throwing up your hands and saying, "I don't know the answer to that question, so there must be a supernatural world to account for everything we can't understand," is not science, and it's the attitude that keeps us still with one foot in the Stone Age.
if you don't think saying "I don't know" is a crime, why do you hold that spiritual things cannot exist on the basis of macro evolution and abiogenesis (for which there is nothing but post dated cheques to suggest)?
“
Given that empiricism deals with the nature of things as the exist at the present, its not clear what gives you the license to boldly spout forth of the future (it certainly sounds supernatural)
”
Apparently my rhetoric is weak. That was meant to be within the hypothetical scenario of unlocking the secret to abiogenesis, not a prediction. I have often said that we may have to wait until we discover another life-bearing planet before we have enough data to test and peer-review the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Unless there are more gaps in our understanding of physics than appear to remain, at relativistic speeds that could be a half-million-year search.

:eek:
thats quite a post dated cheque you issued there

“
Such is the folly of accepting empiricism as the ultimate standard for discerning "validity" since it ultimately boils down to subjective consensus.
”
We increasingly utilize instruments, recordings, double-blinds, etc., which reduce the subjectivity.
at what point does reducing the subjectivity become objective?

The scientific method was established long ago, but the techniques of scientific research continue to advance. The French scientist in the example, for all his faults, was a better scientist than those of Galileo's era, we are better scientists than he was, and those of the next century will be better than us. What comparable improvements have been made in the belief systems that contradict science?
where does the improvement of science lie?
if it still remains now and forever in the realm of subjectivity, what has changed?


As we continue to discover more "truths beyond a reasonable doubt" about the way the natural universe works, and only a small portion of those quasi-truths are ever disproven, leading us inexorably to a fuller understanding of that universe, all we ever hear in rebuttal is the argument from the Stone Age: "There is stuff we don't understand, and so there must be another universe we can never observe to account for it all. You have permission to believe this without evidence or reason because you feel the 'truth' of this instinctively. You should give in to your primitive midbrain and allow your instincts to override your reason."
if empiricism could not indicate a single thing in the universe and say what it ultimately is 2500 years ago and the same remains true today, its not clear how we are going places
“
Thus once an untruthful empirical assertion has weaseled its way into the mechanics of popular science, it can take hundreds of years to expel it - simply due to the social environment that empiricism thrives in.
”
Yes, empiricism has its flaws, but at least errors are ultimately corrected.
yes - one error corrects its predecessor

What alternative do you propose to empiricism that provides a faster track for discovering how the natural universe works?
empiricism has at its foundation the senses
rationalism has at its foundation the mind
do you seriously think that these two partners in crime are capable of discovering how the universe works?

How are belief systems that are not based on reasoning and observation ever corrected?
to begin with they are not based on the mind and senses - they are based on cosnciousness (IOW free from the pushings of false ego - pride, lust, anger, envy, etc)
“
I guess such a regrettable situation could be avoided if empiricists had the the humility to say "we don't know" as opposed to "that is wrong"
”
"The most fundamental statement in science--indeed the basis for all science--is, "I don't know." -- Lt. Commander Data, "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
the moment atheism enters the arena however, it becomes "that is deluded"


My wife says that men invent religions so we never have to say, "I don't know."
then from the onset she has contradicted herself since she is affirming she knows that the claims of religion are wrong

Perhaps all science needs to get over these occasional expressions of hubris are a few more female scientists.
as indicated, puffed up statements born of the limited mind and senses are not gender specific

Umm, Lighgigantic, if human sense and minds are so limited, how come your religion is the correct one, i.e. you are able to comprehend some sort of deity?

Umm, Lighgigantic, if human sense and minds are so limited, how come your religion is the correct one, i.e. you are able to comprehend some sort of deity?
touched it briefly in the reply to fraggle

“
How are belief systems that are not based on reasoning and observation ever corrected?
”
to begin with they are not based on the mind and senses - they are based on cosnciousness (IOW free from the pushings of false ego - pride, lust, anger, envy, etc)

this is what makes theistic knowledge distinct from systems of philosophy (ie rationalism) that are (to a degree) congruent with it (eg - plato)

Ahh, consciousness- can you define it for us, and measure it?
Secondly, given all those other consciousnesses out there with different religions, why is yours correct?

logic only works when no other logical option is tenable...
Please tell me that someone else out there noticed this statement by LG and can see how beautifully it sums up his entire worldview?

Anyone?

Ahh, consciousness- can you define it for us, and measure it?
consciousness is a symptom of life - in other words the very act of being alive is the quality of consciousness
as for measuring it, that is the business of empiricism and is not valid
basically there is a hierarchy like this

senses -> mind -> consciousness

what to speak of measuring consciousness, we cannot even measure the mind (can you measure despair or happiness)
- such is the foolishness of expecting empirical standards as being fully capable of validating everything


Secondly, given all those other consciousnesses out there with different religions, why is yours correct?
not sure what you mean by this, since there is a general consensus amongst religion that qualities that distort consciousness (envy/wrath/greed/etc) are to be minimized, carefully regulated or given up

Please tell me that someone else out there noticed this statement by LG and can see how beautifully it sums up his entire worldview?

Anyone?
No, sorry, my brain automatically bleeps over complete tardism. I blame my exposure to ID related tard here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46fed46c76661fc0;act=ST;f=14;t=127 4

Please tell me that someone else out there noticed this statement by LG and can see how beautifully it sums up his entire worldview?

Anyone?

There are many ways to not appear foolish

one is to carefully follow the discourse it which statements are made

;)

consciousness is a symptom of life - in other words the very act of being alive is the quality of consciousness
as for measuring it, that is the business of empiricism and is not valid

So are bacteria conscious? Viruses?



basically there is a hierarchy like this

senses -> mind -> consciousness

what to speak of measuring consciousness, we cannot even measure the mind (can you measure despair or happiness)
- such is the foolishness of expecting empirical standards as being fully capable of validating everything



not sure what you mean by this, since there is a general consensus amongst religion that qualities that distort consciousness (envy/wrath/greed/etc) are to be minimized, carefully regulated or given up

In case you hadn't noticed, we don't expect empirical standards to validate everything. That is just a figment of your diseased imagination.
Anyway, we can watch the mind in action.

Anyway, I look forwards to you taking your avoidance of consciousness distortion to its logical conclusion, and not posting on these boards.

There are many ways to not appear foolish

one is to carefully follow the discourse it which statements are made

;)
Or to make blatantly self contradictory statements that cannot be rescued by even the most convoluted of discourse. Wouldn't you agree?

Please tell me that someone else out there noticed this statement by LG and can see how beautifully it sums up his entire worldview?

Anyone?

Almost, but I thought his worldview was more:

"logic only works when no other option is tenable..."

Almost, but I thought his worldview was more:

"logic only works when no other option is tenable..."

Right. But the:

"logic only works when no other logical..."

sequence of words had me laughing pretty hard. :D

LOL. I missed that.

Or to make blatantly self contradictory statements that cannot be rescued by even the most convoluted of discourse. Wouldn't you agree?

fraggle is the one running with the ball ("truth can be determined by mere logic") that you are indicating leads to a ditch

;)

guthrie

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
consciousness is a symptom of life - in other words the very act of being alive is the quality of consciousness
as for measuring it, that is the business of empiricism and is not valid
”
So are bacteria conscious? Viruses?
certainly


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
basically there is a hierarchy like this

senses -> mind -> consciousness

what to speak of measuring consciousness, we cannot even measure the mind (can you measure despair or happiness)
- such is the foolishness of expecting empirical standards as being fully capable of validating everything



not sure what you mean by this, since there is a general consensus amongst religion that qualities that distort consciousness (envy/wrath/greed/etc) are to be minimized, carefully regulated or given up
”
In case you hadn't noticed, we don't expect empirical standards to validate everything. That is just a figment of your diseased imagination.

then how do you explain statements like this from Dr. Frank Salter (Max Planck Institute, Germany)

scientific knowledge in many areas is so well-developed that acceptance of it as a starting point can be taken as a criterion of rationality. Accordingly, we can treat a denial of the factual authority of the natural sciences as a whole as a case of empirical irrationality, the denial of well-verified facts.




Anyway, we can watch the mind in action.
watch "what" exactly?

Anyway, I look forwards to you taking your avoidance of consciousness distortion to its logical conclusion, and not posting on these boards.

who's avoiding?

:D

Dr Salter speaks good sense. However it is not clear how that fits with your odd world view.


As for conscious virii, how do you tell that they are conscious? You see, your definition of consciousness is at odds with everyone elses, therefore proper communication is not possible, i.e. you are a fruit cake.

...i.e. you are a fruit cake.
Are you trying to say that LG gets ignored on holidays and left to sit in the back of the fridge until he turns moldy and unrecognizable?

fraggle is the one running with the ball ("truth can be determined by mere logic") that you are indicating leads to a ditch

;)
Is he?

Well, at the risk of incurring a 20 paragraph epic thesis, I'll just say that certain self-contained constructions of the mind - like pure mathematics - are amenable to this world view ("truth can be determined by mere logic") because there is no object of focus involved.

If we are speaking of truth as that which can be objectively demonstrated and verified to N persons, then a mix of "mere" logic and empiricism must be applied. That's how, for all practical purposes, we've gained all of our insights into nature.

This, of course, leaves you LG to your other (non-logic, non-empirical) ways of "knowing the truth" of something, which I assume come from the fact that you think consciousness is a sort of direct perceptual channel to real truth (when trained appropriately, of course).

Why has this thread been hijacked almost entirely by those who deny evolution and those who desperately hope that abiogenesis will be disproven? Are there no other issues of interest that can be used as fodder for this debate? Why are religionists so single-minded? As (black American Catholic) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says in his memoirs, life for tens of millions of Americans would be so much better today if the Catholic Church had expended a fraction of the energy on fighting first slavery and later segregation, as it has expended on fighting abortion.logic only works when no other logical option is tenable - as such it makes for a pretty weak case for a claim (just examine philosophy if you don't believe me). This is why science primarily deals with empiricism first and rationalism second - the more science tries to switch these around, the slimmer the consensus on the claims (eg - quantum physics)Yes I have agreed with this many times. A scientific theory that is based entirely on reasoning is weaker than one which has empirical observations at its heart. The rules of mathematics are of course different since math is entirely about abstractions and makes no claim that its theories predict the behavior of the physical universe without exception. I have often suggested that today's physics blurs its boundaries with both math and philosophy.all species of life are made from several "blue prints" which are slightly modified according to the desire of the designer (after all, its not uncommon to see a variety of car designs)Anthropomorphism is a fallacy, which we have to watch for when we casually throw around handy metaphors like "blueprints." To say "we have to be special because I feel so much more special than a rock or a light wave, therefore living creatures must have a supernatural origin" is human hubris. It also begs the question. What is the origin of the supernatural creature who created us? Science denialists ignore that question, make it a taboo, and/or don't see the obvious parallel with the question of the origin of everything else. Their answer, "The supernatural by definition can never be understood," is the response of a patriarch who does not want to answer his children's questions with "I don't know," because he fears it will erode his authority. Since the theists claim that we're all children, they seem to believe that it's right and proper to frustrate our quest for knowledge. The old fairytale about Eve and the Apple, if I'm not mistaken. BTW science tells us that absolutely had to be a pomegranate, since there were no apple trees within a thousand miles of Mesopotamia while pomegranates were a staple crop.Actually religious based claims are derived from the direct perception of saintly people - for persons who are outside the qualification of such direct perception, they have no alternative but to accept (or reject) such claims on faith, much like a person who has no qualification in science has no alternative but to accept (or reject) such claims on faith.The person who has no qualification in science has the scientific method to rely on. Every theory, before being accepted as "true beyond a reasonable doubt," has been peer-reviewed. The key to the peer review process is that the peer reviewer does not have to be the equal of the original scientist to merely understand a line of research and examine it for errors or weaknesses. Doctoral candidates go out into the field to duplicate observations, trained lab assistants repeat experiments, graduate students read papers. There is no such chain of evidence and trustworthiness for the musings of prophets.since there is no one in the position of direct perception of macro-evolution, on what grounds would you deem it falsifiable?The process has left observable evidence as fossils, DNA, and the stages of the human embryo.what is the "natural world" but an idea based on archetypes --instincts --? At a guess I would say your instinct is that all phenomena can be reduced to a form knowable by our gross senses.Why is that an instinct? Given that the history of Homo sapiens has been a struggle to override instinctive behavior with reasoning and learning, I maintain that empiricism--a challenge to instinctive belief--is one of the things that elevates us above instinct-driven animals and helps us create both science and civilization.life is seen to come from lifeThat is not an answer, it is a tautology. It is the exasperated parent answering a question to which he knows no answer with, "because it is."

Even if, for the sake of argument, there is a larger universe of which ours is just a microcosm, populated by a god who mixed a few chemicals over a Celestial Bunsen Burner and *presto* poured out the first organic tissue, it merely begs the question, which will continue to be asked with increasing stridency until it ceases to be brushed aside as irreverent. Where did the damn bloody GOD come from??? Inquring minds want to know, and a hallmark of the monotheistic religions is the stifling of inquiry.despite billions of dollars being funded to suggest otherwise it still remains the case if you want to argue that life comes from matter (matter that is not alive) it remains an extraordinary claimIt is an order of magnitude less extraordinary than the counter-claim that a supernatural universe exists, populated by supernatural creatures. The counter-claim is not an answer to the question since it still fails to tell us where the supernatural life came from.if you don't think saying "I don't know" is a crime, why do you hold that spiritual things cannot exist on the basis of macro evolution and abiogenesis (for which there is nothing but post dated cheques to suggest)?I do not maintain that spiritual things cannot exist. I merely maintain that to claim so is an extraordinary assertion that does not even have post-dated checks for substantiation. We have to believe that some undetectable part of us continues to "live" after we die, so that dead people are "alive" in the supernatural world, and that the secrets of both the natural and supernatural universes are revealed to them, and--oh what a shame--they are prohibited from communicating with us so we just have to be patient and wait to die. This is not a post-dated check, which is an annoyance. This is a confidence racket, which is a crime.at what point does reducing the subjectivity become objective?Life is about balance, not absolutes, something religionists have trouble grasping. Reducing subjectivity increases objectivity.to begin with they are not based on the mind and senses - they are based on cosnciousnessPlease explain the distinction between "mind" and "consciousness."(IOW free from the pushings of false ego - pride, lust, anger, envy, etc)And continue by explaining how consciousness is separated from emotion. And please tell us where you studied psychology that you picked up the strange terminology "false ego."The moment atheism enters the arena however, it becomes "that is deluded"You walk into a gathering place for scientists and extol the virtues of religion--a system of superstitions--and claim that it is we who are deluded??? Check the name of the website, dude.fraggle is the one running with the ball ("truth can be determined by mere logic") that you are indicating leads to a ditch.Will everybody please stop misquoting me? Truth is a mathematical concept. There is no such thing as truth in science. A theory can only be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. The probability of being proven false--not the truth--of a theory is determined by empirical observation and logic, not logic alone. A theory (a scientific theory, not a mathematical theory) that is supported only by logic, without empirical evidence, may be useful and it may be the best we have at the moment, but it is of a weaker category because it has a higher probability of being falsified.

Will everybody please stop misquoting me?
But then what would LG et al do with all of that straw they've hoarded for just this purpose? :cool:

Truth is a mathematical concept. There is no such thing as truth in science. A theory can only be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. The probability of being proven false--not the truth--of a theory is determined by empirical observation and logic, not logic alone. A theory (a scientific theory, not a mathematical theory) that is supported only by logic, without empirical evidence, may be useful and it may be the best we have at the moment, but it is of a weaker category because it has a higher probability of being falsified.
Right on, brotha!

Dr Salter speaks good sense. However it is not clear how that fits with your odd world view.

then I guess between this post and your previous one

In case you hadn't noticed, we don't expect empirical standards to validate everything. That is just a figment of your diseased imagination.

you've changed your world view



As for conscious virii, how do you tell that they are conscious? You see, your definition of consciousness is at odds with everyone elses, therefore proper communication is not possible, i.e. you are a fruit cake.
you can't recognize a dead virus from a living one?
(you wouldn't get a job in the production of vaccines)

Is he?

Well, at the risk of incurring a 20 paragraph epic thesis, I'll just say that certain self-contained constructions of the mind - like pure mathematics - are amenable to this world view ("truth can be determined by mere logic") because there is no object of focus involved.

If we are speaking of truth as that which can be objectively demonstrated and verified to N persons, then a mix of "mere" logic and empiricism must be applied. That's how, for all practical purposes, we've gained all of our insights into nature.
here is a truthful statement

I am sitting down
my feet are warm
therefore I am not hungry

where is the logic?

here is a logical statement

all pigs can fly
all horses are pigs
therefore all horses can fly

where is the truth?

This, of course, leaves you LG to your other (non-logic, non-empirical) ways of "knowing the truth" of something, which I assume come from the fact that you think consciousness is a sort of direct perceptual channel to real truth (when trained appropriately, of course).
if you think the mind or the senses are some sort of direct perceptual channel to the real you have a few problems to ressolve

here is a truthful statement

I am sitting down
my feet are warm
therefore I am not hungry

where is the logic?

here is a logical statement

all pigs can fly
all horses are pigs
therefore all horses can fly

where is the truth?


if you think the mind or the senses are some sort of direct perceptual channel to the real you have a few problems to ressolve
Wow. You know LG, normally I'd wonder how I could legally obtain whatever it is you've ingested. It seems like a ton of fun!

Here is a logical statement: All pigs can fly; all horses are pigs; therefore all horses can fly. Where is the truth?He said that logic and empiricism are the route to truth, not logic by itself.

You have misquoted a post in order to contradict its conclusion. That is trolling. Stop doing this immediately.if you think the mind or the senses are some sort of direct perceptual channel to the real you have a few problems to ressolveThe senses are our only perceptual channel to the real. What the else is there? Check the meanings of the words "sense" and perceptual."

The quality of your posts is slipping. You started out with a good, honorable debating style. Now you have stooped to taking people's words out of context to make it look like they said something they didn't, and to ignoring the everyday meaning of words to support an invalid hypothesis.

Your last couple of posts are veering dangerously close to trolling. I'm not going to give you an infraction because I know you can do better. But please do. We're on a campaign to improve the quality of the discourse in order to attract more science-oriented members, and not let SciForums degenerate into a chat room for lovelorn teenagers and people who are fed up with George Bush. This is a science website and you have to follow the rules.

-- NOTE FROM THE MODERATORS' COMMUNITY

then I guess between this post and your previous one

In case you hadn't noticed, we don't expect empirical standards to validate everything. That is just a figment of your diseased imagination.

you've changed your world view

Not at all. You have failed to understand. Which empirical standard do you think validates your values? What are empricial standards anyway?



you can't recognize a dead virus from a living one?
(you wouldn't get a job in the production of vaccines)
*Bzzzzttt*
off topic question avoidance noted.

There is no such chain of evidence and trustworthiness for the musings of prophets..

Fraggle,

If religious prophets were so incomprehensible religion would never have existed.

Religious truth is a balance of the heart and mind which conforms to the daily experiences of a vast number of humans - a number which grossly outweighs the subscribers to scientific journals and followers of the scientific method. Religious truth is validated by a 'walking around reality', that is the reality of the world into which all humans are born and not the bizarre and twisted reality created by belief in 'seeing without feeling', ie, science or perhaps 'walking around like a zombie'.

Given that the history of Homo sapiens has been a struggle to override instinctive behavior with reasoning and learning

Reasoning and learning only cause people to become aloof and arrogant which increases barbarism in society.

The struggle is always to admit ones weaknesses and humility in the face of an overwhelming nature.

Fraggle

Why has this thread been hijacked almost entirely by those who deny evolution and those who desperately hope that abiogenesis will be disproven?
could possibly be a reaction to the numbers of persons who borrow from the authority of empiricism to claim that macro-evolution and abiogenesis are indubitable

Are there no other issues of interest that can be used as fodder for this debate?
there is the possibility of discussing the philosophical foundations of determining truth - again, its only a possibility

Why are religionists so single-minded? As (black American Catholic) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says in his memoirs, life for tens of millions of Americans would be so much better today if the Catholic Church had expended a fraction of the energy on fighting first slavery and later segregation, as it has expended on fighting abortion.
also it can't hurt to imagine what could have been accomplished with the budget of NASA
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
logic only works when no other logical option is tenable - as such it makes for a pretty weak case for a claim (just examine philosophy if you don't believe me). This is why science primarily deals with empiricism first and rationalism second - the more science tries to switch these around, the slimmer the consensus on the claims (eg - quantum physics)
”
Yes I have agreed with this many times. A scientific theory that is based entirely on reasoning is weaker than one which has empirical observations at its heart. The rules of mathematics are of course different since math is entirely about abstractions and makes no claim that its theories predict the behavior of the physical universe without exception. I have often suggested that today's physics blurs its boundaries with both math and philosophy.
so given that the foundation of abiogenesis and macro-evolution lies more afield of rationalism than empiricism, its not clear why you demand they be so highly esteemed
“
all species of life are made from several "blue prints" which are slightly modified according to the desire of the designer (after all, its not uncommon to see a variety of car designs)
”
Anthropomorphism is a fallacy, which we have to watch for when we casually throw around handy metaphors like "blueprints."
So how do you propose (without begging the question by postulating that reality complies to reductionist theories) that one put forward a logical argument for ID then, if all subjects of consciousness and its concomitant qualities are blackbanned?


To say "we have to be special because I feel so much more special than a rock or a light wave, therefore living creatures must have a supernatural origin" is human hubris.
to say the opposite (ie mechanomorphism) is also an equivalent fallacy. In every situation there is never only one extreme.
eg hot - cold
high - low
alive - dead


It also begs the question. What is the origin of the supernatural creature who created us? Science denialists ignore that question, make it a taboo, and/or don't see the obvious parallel with the question of the origin of everything else.
given that the time factor is commonly attributed as being a contingent potency of god, it doesn't appear that god denialists have seriously contemplated the issue

Their answer, "The supernatural by definition can never be understood," is the response of a patriarch who does not want to answer his children's questions with "I don't know," because he fears it will erode his authority.
the spiritual can never be understood by those who hold their mind and senses in awe and reverence - much like combinatorics cannot be understood by the discipline of carpentry

Since the theists claim that we're all children, they seem to believe that it's right and proper to frustrate our quest for knowledge.
If a carpenter wants to understand combinatorics by his trade, who's fault is it if he gets frustrated?

The old fairytale about Eve and the Apple, if I'm not mistaken. BTW science tells us that absolutely had to be a pomegranate, since there were no apple trees within a thousand miles of Mesopotamia while pomegranates were a staple crop.
carpenters also tell us that if you want to examine polynomial time, the closest thing to an answer lies in an epoxy resin catalog
“
Actually religious based claims are derived from the direct perception of saintly people - for persons who are outside the qualification of such direct perception, they have no alternative but to accept (or reject) such claims on faith, much like a person who has no qualification in science has no alternative but to accept (or reject) such claims on faith.
”
The person who has no qualification in science has the scientific method to rely on.
a person who has no qualification in theism has the theistic method to rely on - IOW the act of relying on a method is the very nature of qualification

certainly explains why janitors are not called on to peer review the claims of biology

Every theory, before being accepted as "true beyond a reasonable doubt," has been peer-reviewed.
by persons who are qualified (ie rely on the method) or unqualified?

The key to the peer review process is that the peer reviewer does not have to be the equal of the original scientist to merely understand a line of research and examine it for errors or weaknesses.
then why don't they get janitors to do the peer reviewing and save a packet on the difference in hourly rates?

Doctoral candidates go out into the field to duplicate observations, trained lab assistants repeat experiments, graduate students read papers.
and lo and behold, they all hold qualifications in the said field - you don't even find biologists peer reviewing the claims of archaeologists

There is no such chain of evidence and trustworthiness for the musings of prophets.
the workings of peer reviewing of claims in physics is equally mysterious for the janitor
“
since there is no one in the position of direct perception of macro-evolution, on what grounds would you deem it falsifiable?
”
The process has left observable evidence as fossils, DNA, and the stages of the human embryo.
but these are not empirical evidences of macro-evolution
offering macro-evolution is merely one tenable option available to rationalism
“
what is the "natural world" but an idea based on archetypes --instincts --? At a guess I would say your instinct is that all phenomena can be reduced to a form knowable by our gross senses.
”
Why is that an instinct?
it can be indicated by reason
if the senses are blatantly limited, why expect the whole of knowledge to be able to filter through such tiny apertures?

Given that the history of Homo sapiens has been a struggle to override instinctive behavior with reasoning and learning, I maintain that empiricism--a challenge to instinctive belief--is one of the things that elevates us above instinct-driven animals and helps us create both science and civilization.
even if I want to let you run with the ball of macro-evolution, its still not clear how the notion that reality bears any duty to alert my senses is anything but instinctual
“
life is seen to come from life
”
That is not an answer, it is a tautology. It is the exasperated parent answering a question to which he knows no answer with, "because it is."
its only a tautology if you accept that the consciousness of the living entity is contingent on the consciousness of the living entity - clearly most theistic explanations suggest otherwise ...

thus it still remains that life is seen to come from life (despite billions of dollars being spent to suggest otherwise)

Even if, for the sake of argument, there is a larger universe of which ours is just a microcosm, populated by a god who mixed a few chemicals over a Celestial Bunsen Burner and *presto* poured out the first organic tissue, it merely begs the question, which will continue to be asked with increasing stridency until it ceases to be brushed aside as irreverent. Where did the damn bloody GOD come from??? Inquring minds want to know, and a hallmark of the monotheistic religions is the stifling of inquiry.
god is eternal and the living entity is one of his (eternal potencies) - IOW the very notion of the living entity being "created" at a particular time place and circumstance is due to seeing birth as the beginning and death as a closure of an individual's consciousness
“
despite billions of dollars being funded to suggest otherwise it still remains the case if you want to argue that life comes from matter (matter that is not alive) it remains an extraordinary claim
”
It is an order of magnitude less extraordinary than the counter-claim that a supernatural universe exists, populated by supernatural creatures.
still you have an extraordinary claim (an extraordinary claim without evidence too I might add) - the only reason that you hold it in esteem is because of postulating on the platform of rationalism (which as indicated earlier, is a flimsy platform)

The counter-claim is not an answer to the question since it still fails to tell us where the supernatural life came from.
the particular flaw of your rationalistic foundation is the premise that all life is like the life within your abilities of perception around you (thus life comes from life becomes a tautology based on the limitations of your senses) - this is kind of like saying that there is no life under the water since you cannot breathe under water (IOW you postulate yourself - or rather your current understanding of yourself - as the yard stick for reality)
“
if you don't think saying "I don't know" is a crime, why do you hold that spiritual things cannot exist on the basis of macro evolution and abiogenesis (for which there is nothing but post dated cheques to suggest)?
”
I do not maintain that spiritual things cannot exist. I merely maintain that to claim so is an extraordinary assertion that does not even have post-dated checks for substantiation.
Ok here's a post dated cheque for you
technically you can become god conscious in ten seconds - it just requires that you give up placing your mind and senses on the platform of awe and reverence
satisfied?

We have to believe that some undetectable part of us continues to "live" after we die, so that dead people are "alive" in the supernatural world, and that the secrets of both the natural and supernatural universes are revealed to them, and--oh what a shame--they are prohibited from communicating with us so we just have to be patient and wait to die. This is not a post-dated check, which is an annoyance. This is a confidence racket, which is a crime.
if a dead person appears in the womb of another living entity after dying, thus developing a different mind and body where would be the opportunity for communication?
Once again it appears you have flawed premises in your constructs of rationalism
“
at what point does reducing the subjectivity become objective?
”
Life is about balance, not absolutes, something religionists have trouble grasping. Reducing subjectivity increases objectivity.
objective is an absolute term
what does it mean to be "partially objective" if not subjective?
“
to begin with they are not based on the mind and senses - they are based on cosnciousness
”
Please explain the distinction between "mind" and "consciousness."
consciousness is the self as context
mind is the conceived self

for instance we may be asleep, happy, angry, dreaming, thinking about the past or smiling but in all such instances (conceived self states) we are alive and can reflect on such states from the same platform of ego ("I was asleep" "I am happy" etc etc)
“
(IOW free from the pushings of false ego - pride, lust, anger, envy, etc)
”
[QUOTE]And continue by explaining how consciousness is separated from emotion.
emotion (or more specifically, thinking, feeling and willing) is expressed on the platform of consciousness - thus it remains the business of living entities and not dull stones to experience such things

And please tell us where you studied psychology that you picked up the strange terminology "false ego."
given that you are inquiring about a claim to knowledge that lies outside of empiricism/rationalism, its not clear why you suddenly interject that the rules of the game are that such explanations must fall within the fold of academic terms of psychology (which is after all, a sub branch of rationalism)
“
The moment atheism enters the arena however, it becomes "that is deluded"
”
You walk into a gathering place for scientists and extol the virtues of religion
really?
thanks for clearing that up
I was under the impression that I had walked into a gathering place of sneering atheists

--a system of superstitions--and claim that it is we who are deluded???
whoops
looks like you are wrong in your above assertion

Check the name of the website, dude.
do you think "atheists.com" would have the same ring to it?
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
fraggle is the one running with the ball ("truth can be determined by mere logic") that you are indicating leads to a ditch.
”
Will everybody please stop misquoting me?

you say it right here

me - Given that abiogenesis and macro evolution are also not falsifiable by empirical observation and are dependent on something unobservable, its not clear why you make the distinction.
”
you - You misquoted me. "Falsifiable by empirical observation or logical reasoning" was the complete quote. Macroevolution certainly has logical deduction going for it. The progression of the human embryo from a one-celled organism, through several identifiable and still-extant phyla and classes, into an individual of the species Homo sapiens, in only nine months, puts the burden of proof on the person who claims it could not have happened in three billion years.

certainly seems like you attribute the use of logic as sufficient to determine truth, even in the absence of evidence


Truth is a mathematical concept. There is no such thing as truth in science. A theory can only be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. The probability of being proven false--not the truth--of a theory is determined by empirical observation and logic, not logic alone.


A theory (a scientific theory, not a mathematical theory) that is supported only by logic, without empirical evidence, may be useful and it may be the best we have at the moment, but it is of a weaker category because it has a higher probability of being falsified.

so what body of work do hold up in the name of abiogenesis for falsification?

Wow. You know LG, normally I'd wonder how I could legally obtain whatever it is you've ingested. It seems like a ton of fun!
Its called philosophy and possession only has grave consequences in the assembly of fools
:D

Not at all.
then it appears you have again changed your stance since your last post, since that is exactly what Salter is advocating

You have failed to understand. Which empirical standard do you think validates your values?
you misunderstand - the notion that empiricism is the authority for discerning values is a value in and of itself

What are empricial standards anyway?
the notion that the senses are the bottom line in determining any factor





*Bzzzzttt*
off topic question avoidance noted.
nope

its right on track

you asked

As for conscious virii, how do you tell that they are conscious?
and I responded it plays a part in the production of vaccines

Fraggle

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Here is a logical statement: All pigs can fly; all horses are pigs; therefore all horses can fly. Where is the truth?
”
He said that logic and empiricism are the route to truth, not logic by itself.
the issue is however that you said logic OR empiricism can establish truth

you - You misquoted me. "Falsifiable by empirical observation or logical reasoning" was the complete quote. Macroevolution certainly has logical deduction going for it.



You have misquoted a post in order to contradict its conclusion. That is trolling. Stop doing this immediately.
the words are right there

empirical observation or logical reasoning indicate truth
macro evolution is logical therefore it is truthful

if you don't believe me that you typed it scroll through the posts
:shrug:
“
if you think the mind or the senses are some sort of direct perceptual channel to the real you have a few problems to ressolve
”
The senses are our only perceptual channel to the real.
given that the senses are inherently subjective and the word real is inherently objective, it raises philosophical issues

What the else is there?
for an empiricist - absolutely nothing
for others (rationalists) - there is the mind (which also raises philosophical issues)
and for others there is the noumena of both the mind and the senses - namely consciousness

Check the meanings of the words "sense" and perceptual."
check the meanings of phenomena and noumena

The quality of your posts is slipping. You started out with a good, honorable debating style. Now you have stooped to taking people's words out of context to make it look like they said something they didn't, and to ignoring the everyday meaning of words to support an invalid hypothesis.
check your post

I think you have to take back your words or admit you made a mistake in composing your post

Your last couple of posts are veering dangerously close to trolling. I'm not going to give you an infraction because I know you can do better. But please do.
first of all establish what you mean by the words which you highlighted as "Falsifiable by empirical observation or logical reasoning"

consider the special significance of the word "or"

We're on a campaign to improve the quality of the discourse in order to attract more science-oriented members, and not let SciForums degenerate into a chat room for lovelorn teenagers and people who are fed up with George Bush.

you can help contribute to such an amiable atmosphere by not threatening to beat me with a stick simply because I have raised perplexing issues in your post
This is a science website and you have to follow the rules.
and if the moderators also follow rules, we will have a level playing field

Its called philosophy and possession only has grave consequences in the assembly of fools
:D
First of all, fuck you.

With that out of the way, your entire problem is that NO ONE can discuss anything with you because you do exactly what you have been accused of. We make perfectly reasonable statements that refute or put into doubt something you have said, and you then proceed to twist words and take things out of context.

For instance, I said that a mix of logic and empiricism is what we've used (almost exclusively) to gain our current understanding of the world.

Do you deny this? Does this violate some gastrointestinal predisposition you have? Can you ever just say "Yep. That's right" so we can establish some common sense of understanding among us?

You treat every rational thing that almost anyone says with complete contempt and disregard. Why?

empirical observation or logical reasoning indicate truth
macro evolution is logical therefore it is truthful

This makes you an idiot. You constantly take words and fuck them over.

"empirical observation or logical reasoning indicate truth"

INDICATE. Not absolutely confirm.

"macro evolution is logical therefore it is truthful"
Bullshit. You're a liar and a cheat. None of us say any such stupid thing. Only you.

Try this:
"macro evolution is logical AND is supported by thousands of pieces of evidence including fossil, geological, genetic, and actual observations of speciation, therefore it is a very good approach to an explanation."


Quit lying.

For a moment I wondered if I really had misunderstood him or simply misread his post. I see that I have not.

LG: You are hereby put on troll notice. Your next act of trolling will result in infraction. Since we are lately experiencing a steady attack by the Dark Forces of Religion and it is taking up too much of the Moderators' time to treat them with respect, you can probably expect to be banned very soon if you don't clean up your act. We have other important business to take care of besides endlessly rehashing the same tired argument with every kid who thinks he's found the fatal flaw in the scientific method.

Super: I know I dropped the first four-letter word on this thread but it was only "damn" and it wasn't personal. Don't let the trolls drag you down.

For a moment I wondered if I really had misunderstood him or simply misread his post. I see that I have not.

LG: You are hereby put on troll notice. Your next act of trolling will result in infraction and deletion. Since we are lately experiencing a steady attack by the Dark Forces of Religion and it is taking up too much of the Moderators' time to treat them with respect, you can expect to be banned very soon if you don't clean up your act. We have other important business to take care of besides endlessly rehashing the same tired argument with every kid who thinks he's found the fatal flaw in the scientific method.

Super: I know I dropped the first four-letter word on this thread but it was only "damn" and it wasn't personal. Don't let the trolls drag you down.
Sorry. Frustration.

Moved to appropriate forum.

supe

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its called philosophy and possession only has grave consequences in the assembly of fools

”
First of all, fuck you.
konichiwa


With that out of the way, your entire problem is that NO ONE can discuss anything with you because you do exactly what you have been accused of. We make perfectly reasonable statements that refute or put into doubt something you have said, and you then proceed to twist words and take things out of context.
from my side it appears that your unresolved anger issues impede a coherent discussion

For instance, I said that a mix of logic and empiricism is what we've used (almost exclusively) to gain our current understanding of the world.

Do you deny this? Does this violate some gastrointestinal predisposition you have? Can you ever just say "Yep. That's right" so we can establish some common sense of understanding among us?
thats my point precisely
then ow do you propose to falsify macro-evolution and thus bring it to such a standard of understanding?

You treat every rational thing that almost anyone says with complete contempt and disregard. Why?
falsification demands not only rationalism but evidence (aka - direct experience)


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
empirical observation or logical reasoning indicate truth
macro evolution is logical therefore it is truthful
”
This makes you an idiot. You constantly take words and fuck them over.

"empirical observation or logical reasoning indicate truth"

INDICATE. Not absolutely confirm.
whatever
my point is that both things must be there

"macro evolution is logical therefore it is truthful"
Bullshit. You're a liar and a cheat. None of us say any such stupid thing. Only you.

Try this:
"macro evolution is logical AND is supported by thousands of pieces of evidence including fossil, geological, genetic, and actual observations of speciation, therefore it is a very good approach to an explanation."

and all these "evidences" are devices of RATIONALITY
IOW they can not be called to bear for tests of falsification of the claim of macroevolution