Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate

Page 5 of 8 [ 125 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

23 Jul 2011, 11:27 am

ruveyn wrote:

In the last 3000 years science has succeeded and philosophy fails. Philosophers are still mulling over the same hash as Plato and Aristotle. No progress.

ruveyn

All science has to do is to figure out what is and up to a point how it works.

It is cataloguing a museum and writing notes explaining the dioramas. That is what we do.

Philosophy is dealing with abstractions - a place where ruveyn and I fear to tread - and with the parts of humanity that science dares not touch.

It is a much bigger and nastier assignment. The universe? maybe a couple hundred elements repeated indefinitely. Big deal. YOU try understandingf the behavior of ONE human and see how many centuries it takes you.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Jul 2011, 12:20 pm

Philologos wrote:

Philosophy is dealing with abstractions - a place where ruveyn and I fear to tread - and with the parts of humanity that science dares not touch.

It is a much bigger and nastier assignment. The universe? maybe a couple hundred elements repeated indefinitely. Big deal. YOU try understandingf the behavior of ONE human and see how many centuries it takes you.

Physics and mathematics are much more abstract than philosophy. One big difference: Physics must make empirically testable predictions about the world. Philosophy is mostly hot air.

ruveyn

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

23 Jul 2011, 12:52 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Physics and mathematics are much more abstract than philosophy. One big difference: Physics must make empirically testable predictions about the world. Philosophy is mostly hot air.

ruveyn

We must have different definitions of "abstract". It would not surprise me.

Never mind [intentional]

Friendly amendment - physics would like to make empirically testable predictions. First catching your hare - which, Mrs. Beeton says, means devising an appropriate and feasible test - is trckier than estimating the number of angels. The theoreticians do not always wait for the data.

platocrat
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 27 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 34

23 Jul 2011, 1:31 pm

"In the last 3000 years science has succeeded and philosophy fails. Philosophers are still mulling over the same hash as Plato and Aristotle. No progress."

But isn't it the case that our very understanding of science has philosophical underpinnings? The epistemology of science is something that has been refined over the centuries. And science is incapable of answering everything. Science is fantastic for answering questions from a third-person point of view, where we are attempting to catalog and explain the workings of perceived objects in the world. But when it comes to the first-person experience of the world (in other words, our internal, subjective, human experience), science has little to say. Sure, it can provide us with brain correlates to our mental experiences, but those brain facts are still not mind facts. There are pertinent questions in the realm of human existence that need to be answered and that science will not and can not provide us with answers to.

I can't entirely disagree that philosophy hasn't progressed in a strict sense. But so what? Philosophy is all about interpretation, not absolute immutable truth. We are rather unkindly thrust into this world at birth, and from that moment bombarded with a dizzying array of sensory impressions. We did not then, and do not now, have an Archimedean vantage point from which to discern what does or does not constitute "absolute truth". Our brains are adaptive organs which have evolved to help us survive, not to give us an unvarnished perspective on things. Yet, interpret we still must. And if you haven't ever put your beliefs and assumptions in the firing line of philosophy, I'm afraid that you likely have many unfounded assumptions about the world that could be dispelled if only you would open your mind to the possibilities.

Science is not a dogmatic discipline, but it can become so if it's findings are allowed to become stale orthodoxies. Our view of things must always be challenged by the full panoply of human knowledge and thought, whether that be the empirical methods of science, or the analytical and reflective methods of philosophy and religion. Together, these will give the most complete and broad based understanding of all that we experience.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Jul 2011, 2:29 pm

[quote="Philologos"

We must have different definitions of "abstract". It would not surprise me.

Never mind [intentional]

Friendly amendment - physics would like to make empirically testable predictions. First catching your hare - which, Mrs. Beeton says, means devising an appropriate and feasible test - is trckier than estimating the number of angels. The theoreticians do not always wait for the data.[/quote]

The accepted theories of physics are well tested empirically. The big ones are quantum electrodynamics, the standard model of fields and particles and the general theory of relativity. All tested to the ying yangs and never once falsified. What do the philosophers produce? Words.

ruveyn

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

23 Jul 2011, 4:02 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Why that subset of theists cling to creationism in defiance of the facts is an open question.

Do you seriously think that anyone believes things in defiance to the facts? Or perhaps, to the facts that they perceive as factual?

Oh my gosh!

Howyadoin Keet!?

Was just thinkin about you.

Speak of the Devil!

Well...yes I did have one or more actual people I know in mind when i made that post.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

23 Jul 2011, 4:06 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Why that subset of theists cling to creationism in defiance of the facts is an open question.

Do you seriously think that anyone believes things in defiance to the facts? Or perhaps, to the facts that they perceive as factual?

Oh my gosh!

Howyadoin Keet!?

Was just thinkin about you.

Speak of the Devil!

Well...yes I did have one or more actual people I know in mind when i made that post.

I have myself seen and heard people loudly reject the evidence of their eyeds because it contradicted what they first said.

Some cases DO involve diffrent data and different weighting p- but some is simply "I redrect and denounce your data and that is not REALLY an elephant."

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

23 Jul 2011, 4:35 pm

Fnord wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Fnord wrote:

7. Science flies you to the moon.

8. Religion flies you into buildings.

9. Philosophy makes up the excuses.

Not bad!

ruveyn

nicely put

Thanks, guys!

There's hope for WP yet!

Of course, the ad hoc, ersatz, and self-appointed Committee on Philosophical Correctness will disagree ... as soon as they can form a coalition, that is.

:lol:

Other than the fact that I'm a bit offended by the characterizations of religion and philosophy, I must admit that it is an excellent sound bite.

I don't understand the need to dwell on the failings of creationism, beyond the negative effect it can have on teaching science in our schools. If that is what people want to believe, the only way they can read their Bible, then so be it. Just don't try to force real science out of the curriculum.

FYI, I am one of those people who doesn't see why science and faith have to conflict. But I don't believe in a literal reading of the Bible; makes it a lot easier.

_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).

blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

23 Jul 2011, 5:25 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:

Other than the fact that I'm a bit offended by the characterizations of religion and philosophy.

I don't agree with the "religion flies you into buildings" thing, but I do agree with Fnord about philosophy. Philosophy (as to justify beliefs) is mostly a bunch of junk that some people come up in the absence of empirical data.

Quote:

FYI, I am one of those people who doesn't see why science and faith have to conflict. But I don't believe in a literal reading of the Bible; makes it a lot easier.

Yeah, the issue is that not all christians are creationists, for one, biblical literalists call evolution "atheistic" which I'm sure you don't agree with, on the other hand, the reinterpretation of scripture in acordance to empirical data seems ad hoc.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

23 Jul 2011, 8:27 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Fnord wrote:

7. Science flies you to the moon.

Of course, Science itself does this, and everything within the set of Science included? Via the fallacy of division? So, Evolutionary Biology flies you to the moon?

Keet, YECism has even more serious issues than its inconsistency with evolutionary biology. You have to arbitrarily change the value of c to make the timeline work out. And it's long been known that creationists don't believe in radioactive decay. Opposition to basic and very well-established physics is a problem.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

23 Jul 2011, 8:37 pm

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Fnord wrote:

7. Science flies you to the moon.

Of course, Science itself does this, and everything within the set of Science included? Via the fallacy of division? So, Evolutionary Biology flies you to the moon?

Holy s**t, I will never understand why admitting the truth isn't easier than spinning a web of lies. Seriously, I don't understand how denial is even supposed to be comfy. I'm not trying to act superior and all, but the truth would just eat at me and in the back of my head I would know that I'm running away from something. I'm genuinely confused how denial is supposed to work out as a defense mechanism when it is still pretty damn painful and paralyzes you with cognitive dissonance. Perhaps it's because changing a belief isn't just changing a belief, but changing your identity? Feeling that you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater just to accept the truth is the only thing I can come up with.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 Jul 2011, 9:06 pm

Fnord wrote:

cave_canem wrote:

My theory of mind is quite lacking when it comes to trying to understand "hard core" religious people. Any insights would be welcome.

1. Religionists tend to believe everything they're told to believe, but only when told by their favorite religious leaders.

2. Religious leaders tell religionists to believe a collection of largely apocryphal camp-fire stories that have been passed around (in one form or another) since the end of the most recent Ice Age.

3. Religionist tend to believe that facts are mutable, and that Science is a Tool of the Devil that he uses for the express purpose of turning innocent children into sociopathic Atheists.

4. Science relies on methods of inquiry and empirical evidence; the goal of science is to acquire and refine all knowledge and understanding. This is anathema to Religion, which requires blind faith and obedience in all things.

5. Religion relies on arbitrary dogma and faith; the goal of religion is to impose conformity and arbitrary doctrine on a fearful and ignorant public. This is anathema to free inquiry, as Science is the gathering and collection of valid knowledge, along with the simultaneous rejection of false ideas.

6. Philosophy relies on dialog and rules of debate; the goal of a debate is to argue the opposition into a philosophical corner where they are forced to either capitulate or look foolish. This is anathema to serious scientific discussion, as philosophers tend to create "Strawmen" for the sole purpose of de-constructing them bit-by-bit to "prove" an irrelevant point.

7. Science flies you to the moon.

8. Religion flies you into buildings.

9. Philosophy makes up the excuses.

You've got it!

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jul 2011, 9:23 pm

platocrat wrote:

Science is fantastic for answering questions ............

Sorry I am now going to be a linguistic pedant, there should be nothing fantastic about science, remarkable maybe, wondrous perhaps, marvelous could also fit, awesome might even be appropriate, but fantastic is a totally inappropriate adjective with which to to describe the scientific method.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,529
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

23 Jul 2011, 9:29 pm

blunnet wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

Other than the fact that I'm a bit offended by the characterizations of religion and philosophy.

Ahhhh...that may be the communication mix-up in this thread. I call that apologism, not philosophy.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

23 Jul 2011, 9:36 pm

Vigilans wrote:

You've got it!

Welcome to the Team!

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jul 2011, 10:03 pm

Fnord wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

You've got it!

Welcome to the Team!

Which team, the "anti philosophy team" because "Philosophy is predominantly a tool for individuals to partake in intellectual masturbation" if so count me in

:wink:

Page 5 of 8 [ 125 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate Post Reply New Topic

Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate