Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate

Post Reply New Topic

Rofl right. Because there's no such thing as a non-scientific decision or problem.

There is always room for one more. Welcome to the association.

Still - cover your vulnerable spots. If "fantastic" < < < Gk phantazein "make visible":

if we ignore not only the weakening in Mod Anglic of "fantastic" but also semantic jumps in Gk Lat and French, then what could be more appropriate as a descriptor of science than "bringing things to light"?

The other time I concluded that Philosophy is the art of spewing BS, so I'll join the club.

Kann man mir erklaeren, I start as thread saying E versus C is not a debate and it turns into a ganging up on Philosophy, that comes WHY?

Welcome to the "Philosophy is Not to be Taken Seriously" team. Current members include, but aren't limited to:

Blunnet
DentArthurDent
DW a Mom
Fnord
Ruveyn
Vexcaliber
Vigilans

Membership is automatic, and members are free to resign their memberships at any time. We have no stated leader, and all that is required to join is to post any general statement to the effect that what passes for "Philosophy" on the WrongPlanet website is essentially immaterial, irrelevant, and unimportant.

(BTW, I like your "Philosophy is predominantly a tool..." definition.)

Last edited by Fnord on 24 Jul 2011, 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

I just bookmarked this thread, just so I can come back to reference the WP fencepost collection and in the event that a thread seems choked by a mental block in one of the aggressing participants I'll take a look to see if its coming from someone who's signed on over here.

So one question: When you go to the movie rental shop and you can't choose whether it'll be Hot Tub Time Machine or Ong Bak III - which scientific publication or author do you consult to work out your decision? Is this problem the realm of physics, chemistry, and biology or is it more of an IT issue?

Because the definition by DentArthurDent says it all.

"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'll grant you it is a tad informal in the usage, but given that my postings are not seeking recognition in an academic setting, and nor are they being published in a well respected journal or magazine, I think the usage there is just fine.

Your usage of pedant was spot on, though. Might it have been more interesting to have actually addressed the points that I made?

More than anything, I sense that many on this forum feel apprehensive toward the inherent ambiguity of philosophy. I suppose that many people simply have a greater need for cognitive closure than I do. For me, the philosophical inquiry that I've engaged in over the last several years has only strengthened my appreciation for science, and the methodologies underlying scientific inquiry. If it isn't clear, I wholeheartedly and unambiguously accept the conclusions of evolutionary biology, given that no other theory has presented a viable case to dethrone what is one of the crown jewels of modern science. But I prefer to consciously and overtly reflect on my premises, so that no unwarranted assumptions or opaque rationalizations occlude a pellucid understanding of whatever subject is in question.

I also understand that everyone comes into an understanding of the world in their own way. For me, philosophical inquiry is an indispensable partner with science. If you find that the preconceived epistemological assumptions that you attained through a sort of intellectual accretion is sufficient to lend itself to a solid enough understanding of the world, all the power to you. But for me, I must be continuously reexamining my assumptions lest I fall into a paradigmatic rut.

You make a very interesting point, however as we know language is dynamic and as of this moment the Oxford English Dictionary still defines fantastic as being "imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality" and that is what I am holding onto and I will try my hardest to prevent its meaning changing to; extremely or extraordinarily good.

Sorry just trying to have a bit of fun

Oooh - naughty naughty.

Any practicing academic working in any of the [broad definition] sciences knows the answer to that. From the standpoint of Science, that is a nonquestion. Like ruveyn's "Mind" [note carefully the punctuation, not a slur] it does not exist.

Therefore it does not matter what you do and anything that looks to the layman like a decision is either the deterministic outcome of a myriad chemical processes and other physical interactions or else the unpredictable outcome of essentially random neuron firings. Which is much the same thing.

You are right. I have no Mind or mind. Verified by MRI and PET scan. I do have a healthy functioning brain, however, and that will just have to do.

Mind is immaterial and non-physical, therefore it does not exist.

ruveyn

Ahhh! I get it now! Our goal is to move toward zero thought and zero IQ - much like the universe! Now I understand why I've been talking to myself. Have they ever considered at every thought and idea is generated by the same determinism, not just absolute surrender to science and then pure sloth and gut reaction on all else?

Lol

I think the issue is too many people are reading bad philosophers. Seriously though, unless Dent has renounced his Marxist membership, a significant part of his intellectual proclivity is devoted to a man who is known for his philosophy.

I would never have said it had I not kept your words om the subject in mind [I have a mind, me, and several other unquantifiable attributes, including paradoxically concluding that I exist while doubting there is any evidence to support the claim].

ruveyn's point about the mind is based upon a linguistic confusion and thus just silly. He might as well be arguing against software or literature.

As it stands though, philosophy does have a place in (if properly used) curtailing utterly ridiculous proclamations. As much as ruveyn may deride philosophy for being ridiculous, his statement is at least as ridiculous as that of a philosopher.