What Constitutes a Fact?

Post Reply New Topic

Evolution has a large mass of evidence supporting it. Even without fossils evolution theory has been merged with genetics which is every day and every way supported in the laboratory. For certain species, whose reproductive cycle is much shorter than the human life span, evolution by variation and natural seclection has been observed in real time for certain species of bacteria and viruses. For life forms whose reproducte cycle is greater than that of human life span, there is sufficient collateral evidence in the fossils to support the theory.

Life on Earth started (somehow) as a simple form or a few forms based on RNA and DNA and has by variation and natural selection produced many variants, most of which have become extinct in the past.

The earth is over 4 billion years old and there has been some kind of reproducing life on this planet for at least 3.5 billion years. The account of creation in Genesis is mythological and it is insane to take it literally.

ruveyn

I am also fascist in many of the circles I frequent, and definitionally a homophobe and a sexist as well so feel free to sprinkle those titles into your posts as well while you are at it.

When I say there is "almost no evidence" I mean there are a lot of assumptions at work that have no evidence for them and what we do claim to know spawns questions that you can so easily answer with even more theories but not satisfy with evidence. The evidence we have collected is nothing in comparison to what we don't know. No one denies micro evolution, it is one species turning into another, and everything sharing a common ancestor that remains to be resolved.

Micro and macroevolution is exactly the same thing, it is just a matter of degree.

I debated this with you once before. I showed you the evidence. You claimed it meant nothing.

When you decide to actually look at the evidence (in the case I mentioned, the evolutionary chain between hyracotherium and modern day equus) and acknowledge it's existence, you will be taken seriously. Until then, you're spouting nonsense and have no business discussing science of any kind.

In simple words, educate yourself or admit you willingly deny the truth through either stupidity, insanity, or wickedness.

I don't understand the emotional connection to the theory, but it obviously exists. You draw them all out of the woodworks with denying it, but if I can't square gravity with general relativity, were are the haters then? We are hijacking a very interesting thread because of your emotional immaturity. Consider that it may be true to someone else, and entertain the possibilities in the framework I present.

If me mentioning evolution is an impediment to you believing, agreeing, or entertaining the ideas I and others have presented in this thread about truth, please simply replace evolution with something you don't believe in and move on. That's what I do. Its how I see eye to eye with people who don't agree with me on a whole number of issues.

No, not quite. I am an atheist, I trust/apply/believe in science and hold it as an fundamental part of my world-view, but I don't mind that other people hold evolution to be false. But don't get me started on ethics



As to truth in general there appears to be several kinds of truth and not just one. At least primarily 3 kinds, correspondence, coherence and ethical.

I fully appreciate MarketAndChurch's comments on this subject of fact and the emotional response to people when you say evolution is a theory, not a fact.

But lets consider this, would you tell a child at this time of year that father Christmas does not exist, if you did would that child not cry inconsolably?

For MarketAndChurch to accept the scientific theory of evolution is an emotional one, to accept this is to question the blind watchmaker and this would be an inconsolably position to comprehend.
MarketAndChurch consistently informs all that the children of Israel have done more than most to advance the sciences but forgets to include that these advances come only after the acceptance of the reality of evolution. For this "theory" which is the unifying force in modern biology and is responsible for mans advancements in DNA mapping, medicine, genetics, domestication of plants and animals, antibiotics, organ transplants, artificial selection, computer science, paleontology and the list goes on.
MarketAndChurch also talks about the use of mathematics to prove things but fails to acknowledge that the theory of evolution can be expressed in mathematical terms of population genetics, natural selection and has been rigorously tested and empirically corroborated.

The mind of a child is a fragile one, accepting of fairy stories, wizards and monsters but not developed enough to comprehend logic. These “child like” delusions in isolation being taken into adulthood would result in the need for psychological intervention, when it's done in a group we call it religion.

One way to get one aspect in play, is to ask this question: "If science is about facts, is ethics as ethics a fact that science can deal with?

Even if I could get you started on ethics, i wouldn't know how. Please start yourself, there are many of us who are a fan of the subject and I have much to learn myself.

Science plays it's part (evolutionary, psychology), ethics are derived (in my opinion) from our interaction with others. The wider your interaction is to the larger (world) community, the more your ethics developed beyond your own needs to formulate what helps or harms.
If your scope is limited as with many religions or other social inclusive groups, the greater the chance of ethics being a narrow minded form, leading to conformance rather than a philosophically derived ethical conclusion.
As these groups have no concept of the wider implications either because they are not aware (tribes in the Amazon) or limit themselves to a religious ideology. This is not ethics but rather compliance to behave in accordance with the leader.

I will treat your answer as a functional non-answer If science(i.e. the scientific methodology) can be applied to at least some aspects of reality/everything/the world/the universe, then it doesn't follow that it applies to all.
Induction as from some to all is never true or a fact. So if we accept as a start that science works on some parts of reality, it doesn't follow that it works on all.

So again; is science as science itself an ethical system or is science not an ethical system? I.e. can the scientific method be used to actually decide between ethical true/right/good and false/wrong/bad/ethical?

I would have to say it is not an ethical system, Oppenheimer was a great physicist but the ethics of his atomic bomb was not evident until after he saw it used.

"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

No, it is not an ethical system I would aspire to, but you can source ethics from anything. You can source ethics from the flowing streams, the behavior of animals and the sun and the moon and the tide, you can source ethics from power and what the defense of it dictates, you can source ethics from whatever social groups or full on communities dictate, you can source ethics from a whole number of things.

Okay, if science can't be used, then what?

I would appreciate an explaination of ethics sourced from "a flowing stream", "sun and the moon and the tide"?

Well, I would appreciate an explanation of how to differentiate between different ethical claims, before we start to evaluate different ethical claims.