[Terez]

Gem Windcaster, on 08 January 2010 - 01:08 AM, said:

H.D., on 07 January 2010 - 05:42 AM, said:

Gem said:

I've taken this thread as being about Evolution and it's lack of proof, while most of my opponents have taken this thread as being about religion and it's lack of proof. The whole business is pretty hilarious, since the whole point of religion is that it can't be proven, while the point of Evolution is that it claims to be built on solely science and thus needs to have some sort of proof at its base, otherwise it's pretty hypocritical.

Where's the hypocrisy?

The monopoly on truth while not always owning absolute proof. However, if one doesn't monopolize on truth, then you can happily go along with your purty theories.

I bolded that bit in your first quote because I don't think it's true. I haven't been with this thread from the beginning, but I went back through it, and I came into it not long after you did. The point of this thread, such as it is, has been addressed before, and in fact, I found one post where I addressed it rather directly (I'm not sure if that link is doing what it's supposed to, but it's post #673), in response to you. Here is a quote from that post (and it is a long quote because it was a much longer post):

Terez said:

Gem said:

Seriously though, the only difference between my world view and the world view of atheists is that I believe in God. Since atheists, by their own admission (at least some of you here), can't possibly put themselves in my shoes, then why do they make assumptions about what that difference entails?

[...long spiel about Terez's religious history that is not unlike what she just fed to Powder in another thread...]

So that brings us back to the question of why we're even discussing this. Most atheists don't really care one way or the other who believes what. It only becomes a problem at certain points. (not trying to say you believe any of these things...in fact, I'm sure you probably don't believe some of them) "Hey, I believe in god!" Sure, that's cool, I don't, but whatever. "I believe Jesus died to save me from my sins!" That's great too....a bit elitist of you to think I'm going to hell because I can't make myself believe something that's so unbelievable, but whatever. "God hates fags!" Whooooah, you just went too far. Back up. "I bring my kids to church every Sunday!" Eh, I don't like it, but I can't stop you, so whatever. "Evolution is a hoax and we should stop teaching this dodgy science to kids in schools and teach them the Bible instead!" Whoooooooah. You just stepped way over the line.

The reason why atheists have a problem with religion is that it unequivocally encourages irrational thought, because it requires you to believe in something for which there is no evidence. The evidence of this (other than the lack of evidence itself) is in the way that religions have evolved over the thousands of years we can study. Beliefs that are shown to be untrue are eventually discarded, and even when religion itself isn't the source of those beliefs, religious folk are often the last to discard them. It's easy to see why.

The study of evolution isn't what religious people make it out to be. It's science, not a belief system. There are some things that we know about it. There are some things that we don't know about it. There are logical inferences we can make from the things that we DO know about it to fill in some of the "holes" in the theory. If future discoveries support the hypotheses that were made to fill in those holes, then that's great. If future discoveries contradict hypotheses that were made to fill in those holes, then that's great too. These hypotheses fall under the category of "beliefs that are easy to discard when evidence to the contrary is provided."

From a rational perspective, to fill in these "I don't know" holes with "god" is arbitrary. There is no evidence to support filling in those holes with god. It also has nothing to do with logical inferences based on what we know about how evolution works. It's arbitrary. And the belief in god itself falls under the category of "beliefs that are difficult to discard when evidence to the contrary is provided", as is evidenced (along with many other things which may or may not apply to you) by the fact that only people who believe in god have a problem with the theory of evolution.

I noticed when going through my old rep screens, re: the screenshot thread, that I got massive amounts of rep for one post in the Creation vs. Evolution thread, so I went to find it, and there it was. Maybe I will post those rep screens.

Gem said:

H.D., on 07 January 2010 - 05:42 AM, said:

There was never an equal footing. What you take in faith, and is therefore improvable, you then ask others to provide proof that you seem to never validate. It is a lose-lose scenario for anyone not on the side of Creation. Thus, the frustration.

Well yes, it has been my point all along, or one of my points rather, that the whole attack on creationism is futile and rather silly.

In some ways, it is, but it is not really the atheists who choose this debate. Science seeks to understand more about the world; there are just as many religious scientists as atheist/agnostic scientists, or at least almost as many. The debate is only a public issue because Christians, particularly fundamentalists, feel that their beliefs are being threatened by science, and they have even taken steps in a number of places to suppress the study of evolution for that reason. In the latter part of the 20th century, if anything, scientists are guilty of questioning their notions of truth excessively, rather than not enough. But Christians would ask us to question the theory of evolution for no more reason than that it contradicts their faith, something for which there is zero evidence. Scientists hardly need Christians to point out to them the things about evolution that they do not understand; it is their job to focus on those things, and their careers depend on results that can be duplicated and utilized for the betterment of society, without regard to belief systems. You have already expressed that you do not support Intelligent Design™, and that you believe that evolution should be taught in schools. That is good, and even applause-worthy for a Christian, but if your only purpose in this thread is to drive the point home that we do not understand everything about evolution, and that today's scientific truth might be negated in tomorrow's paradigm shift, then your effort is surely wasted, because we all know that. After all this time, you still don't seem to recognize the difference between an empirical belief system and a religious one. The former is a shifting system based on knowledge of any form; the latter claims an absolute truth that should theoretically not be provable or unprovable. The former is made up of beliefs that are easily discarded when evidence to the contrary is provided; the latter provides a motive to dismiss evidence to the contrary. It is only being discussed here because of those who seek to mix religion and science in the public sector, and you claim to be on our side in that particular debate.

This post has been edited by Terez: 08 January 2010 - 03:16 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Yay, Terez is back! I'm gonna respond to your quoted post there - splitting my response, because of the quote tags.

Terez, on 08 January 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

I bolded that bit in your first quote because I don't think it's true. I haven't been with this thread from the beginning, but I went back through it, and I came into it not long after you did. The point of this thread, such as it is, has been addressed before, and in fact, I found one post where I addressed it rather directly (I'm not sure if that link is doing what it's supposed to, but it's post #673), in response to you. Here is a quote from that post (and it is a long quote because it was a much longer post):

Terez said:

Gem said:

Seriously though, the only difference between my world view and the world view of atheists is that I believe in God. Since atheists, by their own admission (at least some of you here), can't possibly put themselves in my shoes, then why do they make assumptions about what that difference entails?

[...long spiel about Terez's religious history that is not unlike what she just fed to Powder in another thread...]

So that brings us back to the question of why we're even discussing this. Most atheists don't really care one way or the other who believes what. It only becomes a problem at certain points. (not trying to say you believe any of these things...in fact, I'm sure you probably don't believe some of them) "Hey, I believe in god!" Sure, that's cool, I don't, but whatever. "I believe Jesus died to save me from my sins!" That's great too....a bit elitist of you to think I'm going to hell because I can't make myself believe something that's so unbelievable, but whatever. "God hates fags!" Whooooah, you just went too far. Back up. "I bring my kids to church every Sunday!" Eh, I don't like it, but I can't stop you, so whatever. "Evolution is a hoax and we should stop teaching this dodgy science to kids in schools and teach them the Bible instead!" Whoooooooah. You just stepped way over the line.

The reason why atheists have a problem with religion is that it unequivocally encourages irrational thought, because it requires you to believe in something for which there is no evidence. The evidence of this (other than the lack of evidence itself) is in the way that religions have evolved over the thousands of years we can study. Beliefs that are shown to be untrue are eventually discarded, and even when religion itself isn't the source of those beliefs, religious folk are often the last to discard them. It's easy to see why.

I pretty much agree with the above paragraphs, however I don't think it's correct to generalize with atheists like that. I think you can only speak for yourself there. I think there are alot of atheists that do care about other people beliefs, and somewhat the reactions you describe shows it - different people act differently though, obviously.

Terez, on 08 January 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

The study of evolution isn't what religious people make it out to be. It's science, not a belief system. There are some things that we know about it. There are some things that we don't know about it. There are logical inferences we can make from the things that we DO know about it to fill in some of the "holes" in the theory. If future discoveries support the hypotheses that were made to fill in those holes, then that's great. If future discoveries contradict hypotheses that were made to fill in those holes, then that's great too. These hypotheses fall under the category of "beliefs that are easy to discard when evidence to the contrary is provided."

It is true that science in itself is not a belief system. But nevertheless for a person to encompass that system of knowledge it requires a belief system. Regular people don't know the particulars about the scientific theories that are accepted as true in our modern society, so they have to trust a certain scientist (or the scientific community), and most scientists can't be sure they are completely correct in everything. So at some point there has to be an issue of trust and belief. Of course there are a scale of theories that requires more belief to theories that requires less belief.

Terez, on 08 January 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

From a rational perspective, to fill in these "I don't know" holes with "god" is arbitrary. There is no evidence to support filling in those holes with god. It also has nothing to do with logical inferences based on what we know about how evolution works. It's arbitrary. And the belief in god itself falls under the category of "beliefs that are difficult to discard when evidence to the contrary is provided", as is evidenced (along with many other things which may or may not apply to you) by the fact that only people who believe in god have a problem with the theory of evolution.

The thing is, Terez, evidence can only take you so far - in the end you have to make up your own mind about what is rational or arbitrary or even logical. Because if you yourself is not allowed to make that decision, then who is going to make it for you - politicians, teachers, philosophers, scientists, or even priests? To you, empirical evidence is holy (pardon my choice of word), in that you set it above anything else that would make you decide or make up your mind.

Even so of course, I do think you are correct that there are alot of people that function like you describe. But just as I can't assume atheists all function the same, neither can you safely assume that all people with a belief in a God functions the same. However, we're all human, and with our own experience, we all know what that is like.

When this thread was first posted, I don't see how it was meant to do anything else than to ridicule and to try to disprove the creationist view, which also people generally don't know very much about (I have noticed that it regularly just amount to: they are Christians). But science don't need to prove anything to creationists - in fact it's probably pretty futile - indeed, science is as an objective entity much harsher towards its own theories than creationists are - or even more than most scientists realize sometimes (science as in the average scientist). But as a construct, science requires something more to be accepted into humanity - so inadvertently there's a non official, non obvious belief construct (or flow of ideas) which the knowledge system of science can stand on, oi our modern society. It's needed because we are humans, and not robots.

So I have two objections to the existence of this thread:
1. Science don't need to attack other (or opposite (if one like)) flow of ideas - it just needs to build on its own base, because it's good enough or even better than what it's attacking-
2. When science is polarizing against another belief system, its basically attacking itself, because science cannot decide what's part of it and what's not. I guess you or even I would want to say that science is the average scientist more than the peripheral scientific theories, but I don't think it's that simple - I think science inherently encompasses everything that possibly could fit into it - even if it's contradictory, even if it's slightly dodgy - as long as one person considers it science. I myself cringe at the idea, but I think it's possible that's how things are.

Possibly you could argue that no. 2 is necessary anyway, because conflict happens every day in scientific communities. Well, you can build or you can destroy, and I don't think attack is the best defense in this instance, so to speak. I've been trying to think more about why that course of action bothers me so much, and that's how far I've gotten so far.

To be continued...

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 08 January 2010 - 06:58 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on 08 January 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

Gem said:

H.D., on 07 January 2010 - 05:42 AM, said:

There was never an equal footing. What you take in faith, and is therefore improvable, you then ask others to provide proof that you seem to never validate. It is a lose-lose scenario for anyone not on the side of Creation. Thus, the frustration.

Well yes, it has been my point all along, or one of my points rather, that the whole attack on creationism is futile and rather silly.

In some ways, it is, but it is not really the atheists who choose this debate. Science seeks to understand more about the world; there are just as many religious scientists as atheist/agnostic scientists, or at least almost as many. The debate is only a public issue because Christians, particularly fundamentalists, feel that their beliefs are being threatened by science, and they have even taken steps in a number of places to suppress the study of evolution for that reason. In the latter part of the 20th century, if anything, scientists are guilty of questioning their notions of truth excessively, rather than not enough.

Obviously I have missed all that you speak of, because I'm not in US, and we have a slightly different society over here, but I definitely agree with your sentiment, and as far as I can tell you're correct.

Terez, on 08 January 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

But Christians would ask us to question the theory of evolution for no more reason than that it contradicts their faith, something for which there is zero evidence. Scientists hardly need Christians to point out to them the things about evolution that they do not understand; it is their job to focus on those things, and their careers depend on results that can be duplicated and utilized for the betterment of society, without regard to belief systems.

Indeed, I agree with you, even though the generalization makes me cringe. My issue is not with scientists that can easily admit they don't know everything, my issue is with people that think they know science or even scientists that are close to fundamentalists. As you say, science should be about having an open mind. And it think sometimes scientists becomes the modern priests sometimes, that people believe their words without question. I am sure you can appreciate the paralell ().

Terez, on 08 January 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

You have already expressed that you do not support Intelligent Design™, and that you believe that evolution should be taught in schools. That is good, and even applause-worthy for a Christian, but if your only purpose in this thread is to drive the point home that we do not understand everything about evolution, and that today's scientific truth might be negated in tomorrow's paradigm shift, then your effort is surely wasted, because we all know that.

Oh, I do believe you know the theory in all its glory; the question is, do you know enough about yourselves and the theory's impact on your own world view, your tolerance towards other people etc. The theory is what it is, the thing I am discussing here is the influence we all have on our own world view.

Terez, on 08 January 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

After all this time, you still don't seem to recognize the difference between an empirical belief system and a religious one. The former is a shifting system based on knowledge of any form; the latter claims an absolute truth that should theoretically not be provable or unprovable. The former is made up of beliefs that are easily discarded when evidence to the contrary is provided; the latter provides a motive to dismiss evidence to the contrary. It is only being discussed here because of those who seek to mix religion and science in the public sector, and you claim to be on our side in that particular debate.

OH I do see the difference between an empirical belief system and a religious one. The problem is no human exist that can remove themselves from society that they can be so pure in their thinking and only encompass one belief system, and only one. The issue is not with the empirical belief system - or even a religious one - the problem is the human minds that can't remove themselves from their own thoughts(and why would they?), and see them from the outside. As I have said a million times in this thread, it's all about the perspective, not about data. You can't argue with data, but you can argue with the perspective. For instance, officially, science doesn't claim absolute truth, but in the confines of a scientific theory, there is definitely something claiming absolute truth, although not in the same form a religious belief system would. If you call a rose crap, it still has a nice scent.


Let me think about how I can explain that simpler. Btw though, I see what you are saying, it's just that I am trying to get to the core of what is bothering me so much, and even though it's clear in my mind, it's hard sometimes to find the words for it.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 08 January 2010 - 07:26 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

For scientific belief- if you're a lay man (or woman), you don't often participate in forming scientific beliefs. You can hold them, indeed, it is wise for you to do so, but the difference between the holding of religious beliefs and holding empirical beliefs is that there are well established, public, empirical standards of validity. There's no need to isolate the mind when you can't opine yourself into validity.

If you're instead subscribing to a particular religious sect, doctrine, etc, amongst different creeds there is no mutually agreed upon standard of comparison between them. It is intensely personal, instead of empirical.

[Gem Windcaster]

Adjutant Stormy, on 12 January 2010 - 08:27 PM, said:

For scientific belief- if you're a lay man (or woman), you don't often participate in forming scientific beliefs. You can hold them, indeed, it is wise for you to do so, but the difference between the holding of religious beliefs and holding empirical beliefs is that there are well established, public, empirical standards of validity. There's no need to isolate the mind when you can't opine yourself into validity.

If you're instead subscribing to a particular religious sect, doctrine, etc, amongst different creeds there is no mutually agreed upon standard of comparison between them. It is intensely personal, instead of empirical.

Dude, empiric validity is great, but Science is by no means a single mind and soul. Simply because humans are not robots, and not everything that humans experience, that humans are, have anything to do with empiric validity. Also, I don't think there is anything that can be called 'empiric belief'. Unless of course you count your own trust on your own senses a belief, which I guess you could do. I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I don't think it has anything to do with what I am trying to say.

The interesting part about empiricism is that empiric data always have to go through the brain and mind of a human - we can never really look at it from an 'outside' perspective, so to speak, so we are always bound by our own brain and mind when dealing with something through our senses.

I am sure you could see empiric data as being a concept valid in its own right, despite human 'interference' or not. But it doesn't change the fact that for us to 'reach' it, we still have to use our senses. And as we all know, an experience is not always the same for everybody - so the obvious question is, who decides what is empirical? Pretty much everybody wants to secretly answer that question: me.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 19 January 2010 - 12:37 AM

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster, on 19 January 2010 - 12:32 AM, said:

I don't think there is anything that can be called 'empiric belief'. Unless of course you count your own trust on your own senses a belief, which I guess you could do.

This argument is as asinine as it always was, and it really has no place in a debate about a supernatural belief system vs. an empirical one. We can't always trust our senses, but that knowledge is part and parcel of empiricism. We know that we can't trust them always because we have OBSERVED that our senses can sometimes be deceived. Science that does not work often has this flaw at its root, but that's why we keep on trucking, approaching things from different angles, until we can correct such flaws.

Gem said:

so the obvious question is, who decides what is empirical? Pretty much everybody wants to secretly answer that question: me.

No, not quite. When it comes to spiritual belief...yeah. Nothing is going to make your personal belief system acceptable to anyone else, but in science, it's all about results. Nearly every post you've made on this thread has made some attempt to reduce this battle of belief systems into a philosophical vagueness, but in the context of the theory of evolution and its veracity/relevance to society, it's a bullshit argument.

This post has been edited by Terez: 19 January 2010 - 09:29 PM

[Dolorous Menhir]

Terez, on 19 January 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

No, not quite. When it comes to spiritual belief...yeah. Nothing is going to make your personal belief system acceptable to anyone else, but in science, it's all about results. Nearly every post you've made on this thread has made some attempt to reduce this battle of belief systems into a philosophical vagueness, but in the context of the theory of evolution and its veracity/relevance to society, it's a bullshit argument.

That is gold. I haven't even read Gem's entries and I know it's true. You guys should give up this debate, there's no point to these arguments.

p.s. Terez, you rock.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on 19 January 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 19 January 2010 - 12:32 AM, said:

I don't think there is anything that can be called 'empiric belief'. Unless of course you count your own trust on your own senses a belief, which I guess you could do.

This argument is as asinine as it always was, and it really has no place in a debate about a supernatural belief system vs. an empirical one. We can't always trust our senses, but that knowledge is part and parcel of empiricism. We know that we can't trust them always because we have OBSERVED that our senses can sometimes be deceived. Science that does not work often has this flaw at its root, but that's why we keep on trucking, approaching things from different angles, until we can correct such flaws.

Well of course, that's why I questioned the 'empiric belief' concept. I am confused by what AS was trying to say there, and I agree with you that empiricism doesn't really hold a belief system - it's the person having an empiric experience that holds belief about what he or she experiences. Does that make sense to you?

Terez, on 19 January 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

Gem said:

so the obvious question is, who decides what is empirical? Pretty much everybody wants to secretly answer that question: me.

No, not quite. When it comes to spiritual belief...yeah. Nothing is going to make your personal belief system acceptable to anyone else, but in science, it's all about results. Nearly every post you've made on this thread has made some attempt to reduce this battle of belief systems into a philosophical vagueness, but in the context of the theory of evolution and its veracity/relevance to society, it's a bullshit argument.

Well, I think the reality is vague. But that's me. Anyway, I think empirical results have very little to do with the theory of evolution. The theory is more about beliefs than about empiric results - I know, I know, you don't agree, and please don't kill me, but this is how I see it.
Why do you see a problem with admitting the philosophical problem of empirical data though? Empirical data is 'what works' - correct me if I'm off here - and if enough people have the same experience, 'what works' is considered as truth, empirically speaking. All fine and well. But there's a difference between knowledge of 'what works' and understanding the process/function behind it, 'why it works'.
This is where belief comes in, and why empirical belief is sort of a contradiction in concepts. The rest of the comment I made about empirical data having to go through our brain wasn't really an argument per se, but an interesting issue.

'Why it works' is a different part of science I think, again correct me if I am way off, and this is what I mean when I say empirism only can take you so far. Theories are made from the empirical data, am I right? Theories that are made from assumptions that can't really be checked aren't really considered scientific, correct? The problem arises, according to me, when a small amount of empirical data is upholding larger theoretical construct, with a lot of 'fillings'. Well, to me it's not really a problem, as long as you admit that they are fillings - but as soon as you say 'this empirical data can speak for all the fillings', we have are building something of faith. Which again, I have no issue with. Some theories are more empirical than others, naturally.

ANd before you kill me, let me explain something that I think have bothered you guys. Admittedly, the theory of evolution is in its most comprised form, pretty straightforward, although quite vague too, but hey maybe that's just me. The problem is, theoires are never closed occurrances, they are not independant of other theories - I think someone mentioned that once, or something similar, when I mentioned the big bang theory (can't remember what it was about though), that it is another theory, and therefore not worth mentioning in the context of the theory of evolution or whatever. But even as I realize that theories scientifically, or formally, are independent - they can never be independent of their context. Secondly, the formal theory is just one layer of the theory - the part that makes a theory effect a society and build ideologies can almost be seen as an entity apart from the rest of the theory, although dependent on it.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Gem Windcaster, on 20 January 2010 - 07:26 PM, said:

'Why it works' is a different part of science I think, again correct me if I am way off, and this is what I mean when I say empirism only can take you so far. Theories are made from the empirical data, am I right? Theories that are made from assumptions that can't really be checked aren't really considered scientific, correct? The problem arises, according to me, when a small amount of empirical data is upholding larger theoretical construct, with a lot of 'fillings'. Well, to me it's not really a problem, as long as you admit that they are fillings - but as soon as you say 'this empirical data can speak for all the fillings', we have are building something of faith. Which again, I have no issue with. Some theories are more empirical than others, naturally.

ANd before you kill me, let me explain something that I think have bothered you guys. Admittedly, the theory of evolution is in its most comprised form, pretty straightforward, although quite vague too, but hey maybe that's just me. The problem is, theoires are never closed occurrances, they are not independant of other theories - I think someone mentioned that once, or something similar, when I mentioned the big bang theory (can't remember what it was about though), that it is another theory, and therefore not worth mentioning in the context of the theory of evolution or whatever. But even as I realize that theories scientifically, or formally, are independent - they can never be independent of their context. Secondly, the formal theory is just one layer of the theory - the part that makes a theory effect a society and build ideologies can almost be seen as an entity apart from the rest of the theory, although dependent on it.

Wow.

[stone monkey]

Unless you're asking for the specific gene sequences for every single living thing that ever existed along with the day-to-day movements of every organism concerned as well as detailed observations of every single environmental factor (which you might be, I don't know), the Theory of Evolution (in it's current form) isn't actually all that vague at all. The various strands of evidence, fossil, morphological, genetic etc that currently serve to back it up are pretty comprehensive. It's possible to draw, if not exact (because without a time machine we'll never know), then pretty comprehensive family trees for quite a large number of species taking evidence from each of the strands to form a whole.

Observation and/or experiment leads you to a hypothesis as to how to connect those facts and suggests further observation and/or experiment to tell you how successful you've been. Which then leads to to a Theory. Darwin's "long argument" was a hypothesis, what we've seen and discovered in the past century and a bit has made it a Theory.

As for societal impact of theories, if you're arguing that a particular scientific theory is wrong on the basis that its sociopolitical or philosophical implications may be ones you (or anyone else) happen to disagree with, rather than on its own merits as to how effectively it explains observations made in the real world and what testable predictions it has made that have been verified, then I think you might be trying to usher in a Dark Age... Which surely can't be the case...

Oh, and are you sure "empirical" means what you think it means?

And a final thought; in a quantum mechanical sense, reality is rather vague; fortunately we can put limits on how vague it actually is. The implications of this, curiously enough, are what quite a lot of people, including Einstein, didn't (and still don't) like about the theory. Like any good theory, it gets around these objections by being correct

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 20 January 2010 - 09:10 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 20 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

Unless you're asking for the specific gene sequences for every single living thing that ever existed along with the day-to-day movements of every organism concerned as well as detailed observations of every single environmental factor (which you might be, I don't know), the Theory of Evolution (in it's current form) isn't actually all that vague at all. The various strands of evidence, fossil, morphological, genetic etc that currently serve to back it up are pretty comprehensive. It's possible to draw, if not exact (because without a time machine we'll never know), then pretty comprehensive family trees for quite a large number of species taking evidence from each of the strands to form a whole.

I think you summed that up nicely. At least we can agree on the data here. However there's a vast philosophical difference in our views. BUt that's fine I guess.

stone monkey, on 20 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

Observation and/or experiment leads you to a hypothesis as to how to connect those facts and suggests further observation and/or experiment to tell you how successful you've been. Which then leads to to a Theory. Darwin's "long argument" was a hypothesis, what we've seen and discovered in the past century and a bit has made it a Theory.

I am aware of this. But I see this particular theory as being quite extraordinary and for instance the time perspective gives much more room for speculation and data filtering, and not to mention the philosphical engineering required to continue to build it.

stone monkey, on 20 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

As for societal impact of theories, if you're arguing that a particular scientific theory is wrong on the basis that its sociopolitical or philosophical implications may be ones you (or anyone else) happen to disagree with, rather than on its own merits as to how effectively it explains observations made in the real world and what testable predictions it has made that have been verified, then I think you might be trying to usher in a Dark Age... Which surely can't be the case...

No. My answer is no. I could ask you if you're arguing that a particular scientific theory is correct on the basis that its sociopolitical or philosophical implications may be ones you happen to agree with, rather than on its own mertis as to how effectively it explains observations made in the real world and what testable pedictions it has made that have been verified...etc. But I am not going to do that. You see, with the theory of evolution, the pretty not so subtle accusation that I am critizising the theory because it doesn't go with my worlview, it can go both ways. And the paralell to the dark ages is incorrect, since I am the one critizising the accepted social construct, not you. Just saying.

stone monkey, on 20 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

Oh, and are you sure "empirical" means what you think it means?

It doesn't?

stone monkey, on 20 January 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

And a final thought; in a quantum mechanical sense, reality is rather vague; fortunately we can put limits on how vague it actually is. The implications of this, curiously enough, are what quite a lot of people, including Einstein, didn't (and still don't) like about the theory. Like any good theory, it gets around these objections by being correct

It's vague because we don't have the whole picture, not because there's something wrong with reality or even that theory. I don't like not having the whole picture either, but there it is...
For instance we can't really know how correct the M theory is - we can only say that it seems to be correct. But to most people it's just jibberish.
The theory of evolution isn't wrong because it's vague, hey for all I know it could even be correct - but not because it's a good theory, it's a pretty darn lousy theory. And lame too, but hey you can't get everything you want right?

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 20 January 2010 - 11:05 PM

[stone monkey]

Curious, agreeing with me. It must be a trap.

So, despite the mountain of data and evidence that currently exists, it would appear (although I could be wrong) that you want things that you know are impossible to get; is that correct? If so that's a remarkably high standard of proof for someone who believes in a being about whom it's impossible to get any data at all. That's discounting the Biblical record because (thought experiment here) those guys (who we can't actually talk to and ask) could just have made it all up... Its also a higher standard of proof than you would also appear to want to apply to any other scientific theory you might care to mention.

As far as evolutionary time goes, it's not all that extraordinary. You might want to read a book on geology, or even astronomy, and see the timescales those guys play about with...

Evolution, sociopolitically, has some fairly devastating implications, not all of which I agree with. They're there nonetheless. A good example of this is why the most dangerous person in a small child's life is its stepfather; I haven't been a stepfather, but if I were I really wouldn't like knowing that millions of years of evolution mean that I'm supposedly more likely to kill a small child because it has none of my genes and is thus taking resources away from a child of mine that does, I can't imagine what that must do to peoples' heads...

But a theory doesn't have to make me comfortable for me to accede that it's the one that most comprehensively explains the universe as we see it. It just has to do it's job i.e. explain stuff. What society does regarding the implications of a scientific theory really do have no bearing on the accuracy of the theory in question.You seem to be giving the impression that science says things for the sole reason that the people involved would like them to be true. It's a fairly trivial truism that every scientist would like their theory to be true, but the reason they'd like this is that it would mean they were right.

Actually, the Dark Ages thing does not work both ways, much as you'd like it to. You're the one who's wants to discard (or at least downplay) the role of observation and experiment. If that's not a recipe for the total destruction of the sciences (and a good few other disciplines too), then I don't know what is. And if you're willing kill to off the sciences (and the majority of the humanities, for good measure) then you really are the barbarian at the gates...

Intuition, revelation and inner experience are all great and they're important parts of the human experience, they're also notoriously bad tools for telling us anything useful about the physical universe i.e. y'know, accurate stuff? Stuff that works... What they're actually good at is for telling us things about what's going on in other human beings' heads; which is probably the reason they evolved in the first place.

I think you're misunderstanding my point about quantum mechanics. It implies that the universe at a deep level cannot be certain, that it's all governed by probabilities, that we can't ever get the whole picture because there is no such thing as a whole picture. You might not like it, (you'd be agreeing with Einstein here too, which just goes to show how easy it is for clever people to be completely and irrevocably wrong) but I think it's fine and dandy; because it works. Quantum mechanics has been empirically tested to a finer degree of accuracy than any other theory that has ever existed. This discussion would be impossible without it.

The Theory of Evolution is actually a very good theory (one of our best, in fact) because, like all the other good theories, it has been repeatedly tested and has met the challenges of those tests. It's made predictions that were later found to be accurate; one of the earliest being the age of the earth. It would seem that it's only a lousy theory because you disagree with it, not because it doesn't meet the criteria for a good one. So I'm also left wondering where the "lame" comes from; what is it about the Theory of Evolution that personally offends you?

As for M-Theory; M-Theory is currently a bad theory, it makes assertions that can't be tested or observed, it suggests no experiments. It might be that it later comes to be seen as a good theory if our technology catches up to it, or it may fall by the wayside. But that's the scientific method for you; theories that don't meet its requirements get discarded, even the ones that survive are under constant attack.

Coming back to the sociopolitical aspect, you might also want to look at the history the Theory of Evolution as it was far from popular when it was first mooted, the religious worldview was paramount, one could argue that it still is; I would go so far as to suggest that a majority of the world's population would argue that Evolution is still the transgressive theory. Which might knock your position about you being the one who's arguing against accepted social constructs into a cocked hat, as it's rather difficult to think of yourself as being edgy and transgressive when you're not actually being so, isn't it?

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 21 January 2010 - 01:53 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

Curious, agreeing with me. It must be a trap.

So, despite the mountain of data and evidence that currently exists, it would appear (although I could be wrong) that you want things that you know are impossible to get; is that correct? If so that's a remarkably high standard of proof for someone who believes in a being about whom it's impossible to get any data at all. That's discounting the Biblical record because (thought experiment here) those guys (who we can't actually talk to and ask) could just have made it all up... Its also a higher standard of proof than you would also appear to want to apply to any other scientific theory you might care to mention.

But then, I don't try to make a scientific theory about God. I would agree with you if I were, but I'm not. And couldn't the reason my standard of proof in this case is seen as high because of the difficulty to get the proof?

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

As far as evolutionary time goes, it's not all that extraordinary. You might want to read a book on geology, or even astronomy, and see the timescales those guys play about with...

I think I might have misused the word extraordinary, but sure, I like being educated, so why not...

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

Evolution, sociopolitically, has some fairly devastating implications, not all of which I agree with. They're there nonetheless. A good example of this is why the most dangerous person in a small child's life is its stepfather; I haven't been a stepfather, but if I were I really wouldn't like knowing that millions of years of evolution mean that I'm supposedly more likely to kill a small child because it has none of my genes and is thus taking resources away from a child of mine that does, I can't imagine what that must do to peoples' heads...

Curiously, this is part of why I dislike the theory - the things people would believe about humanity because of what they think the history of Earth tells them. Not that I don't recognize that people do really bad things.

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

But a theory doesn't have to make me comfortable for me to accede that it's the one that most comprehensively explains the universe as we see it.

I think your standards are too low.

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

It just has to do it's job i.e. explain stuff.

No matter if they make sense or not? Sure it kinda, sorta make sense, if you stretch it...but still, you just want an explanation? That's sad. Isn't it up to ourselves to explain things about ourselves too?

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

What society does regarding the implications of a scientific theory really do have no bearing on the accuracy of the theory in question.

I disagree.

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

You seem to be giving the impression that science says things for the sole reason that the people involved would like them to be true. It's a fairly trivial truism that every scientist would like their theory to be true, but the reason they'd like this is that it would mean they were right.

What I am saying is more complicated than that. Science is less about what is actually true, and more about what a certain group of people say is true.

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

Actually, the Dark Ages thing does not work both ways, much as you'd like it to. You're the one who's wants to discard (or at least downplay) the role of observation and experiment. If that's not a recipe for the total destruction of the sciences (and a good few other disciplines too), then I don't know what is. And if you're willing kill to off the sciences (and the majority of the humanities, for good measure) then you really are the barbarian at the gates...

I would never want to discard the role of observation and experiment - on the contrary. But I'd like us to learn the difference between the choices we make and the actual result. It's shouldn't be that hard.

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

Intuition, revelation and inner experience are all great and they're important parts of the human experience, they're also notoriously bad tools for telling us anything useful about the physical universe i.e. y'know, accurate stuff? Stuff that works... What they're actually good at is for telling us things about what's going on in other human beings' heads; which is probably the reason they evolved in the first place.

Are you saying it would be great if we didn't have to figure stuff out, ever? Because our experience of the physical world doesn't tell us anything about how works unless we think about it. It's the scary 'why it works' that makes sense of 'what works', not the other way around. So something seems accurate until we bump our head against the wall, but if you're stupid enough, you won't think to turn around and try another approach - you'll just keep bumping your head against the wall. We need our heads man. ANd yes, we might never know if we're smart enough stop bumping our head against the wall, maybe we'll keep doing it forever.

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

I think you're misunderstanding my point about quantum mechanics. It implies that the universe at a deep level cannot be certain, that it's all governed by probabilities, that we can't ever get the whole picture because there is no such thing as a whole picture. You might not like it, (you'd be agreeing with Einstein here too, which just goes to show how easy it is for clever people to be completely and irrevocably wrong) but I think it's fine and dandy; because it works. Quantum mechanics has been empirically tested to a finer degree of accuracy than any other theory that has ever existed. This discussion would be impossible without it.

We'd still be able to have this discussion even without the theory, but not without the mechanics.

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

The Theory of Evolution is actually a very good theory (one of our best, in fact) because, like all the other good theories, it has been repeatedly tested and has met the challenges of those tests. It's made predictions that were later found to be accurate; one of the earliest being the age of the earth. It would seem that it's only a lousy theory because you disagree with it, not because it doesn't meet the criteria for a good one. So I'm also left wondering where the "lame" comes from; what is it about the Theory of Evolution that personally offends you?

We can agree to disagree on the good theory thing, because I still think your standards are pretty low. Now I am also starting to worry about the criteria for a good theory. But I am fascinated by those tests you mentioned. We should discuss those in more detail.

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

As for M-Theory; M-Theory is currently a bad theory, it makes assertions that can't be tested or observed, it suggests no experiments. It might be that it later comes to be seen as a good theory if our technology catches up to it, or it may fall by the wayside. But that's the scientific method for you; theories that don't meet its requirements get discarded, even the ones that survive are under constant attack.

It's a really cool theory, though ain't it?

stone monkey, on 21 January 2010 - 01:24 AM, said:

Coming back to the sociopolitical aspect, you might also want to look at the history the Theory of Evolution as it was far from popular when it was first mooted, the religious worldview was paramount, one could argue that it still is; I would go so far as to suggest that a majority of the world's population would argue that Evolution is still the transgressive theory. Which might knock your position about you being the one who's arguing against accepted social constructs into a cocked hat, as it's rather difficult to think of yourself as being edgy and transgressive when you're not actually being so, isn't it?

Well where I live the theory of evolution is the accepted worldview, and I haven't been to the rest of the world. Either way, it does feel like I am arguing against social constructs in a way. Statistically speaking, if what you say is true, that means you're an elitist. Actually, that makes us both elitist, only in different ways.
Aaanyway, the theory of evolution was popular in some circles, while not so popular in others - it was also constantly misused and misquoted - at least Darwin's work was. I think.
Anyway, enough with the not so subtle insulting, sm, it doesn't suit you.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Dear Gem,

The reason your standard of proof is so different is because you haven't agreed to play the game. The science game, in which we generate knowledge about the world around us through repeated collection of evidence with agreed upon standards. Otherwise, one collection of evidence would be incomparable to another, one man's 'valid theory' would be another's 'total hocus pocus'.

Science is, in fact, ENTIRELY about what is actually true. That is all that a theory counts on. That is all that an experiment cares about. If it cannot be observed to be false, it cannot be presumed to be true.

Quantum mechanics is not open for discussion in the absence of the theory. The theory tells us additional things, things we may not have yet had the chance to see in our experience, based on the evidence that we have collected thus far. This is true for theories in general, and it is their strength.

By the same token, M-theory is 'cool' but it is currently hocus pocus. It's being totally sweet, or having your favorite animal in it, or whatever doesn't matter, because that's a personal affectation. Science is the most apersonal thing I can think of. The merits of a theory must exist in the absence of people.

Scientists aren't elitists. They're actually, philosophically at least, the most humble of people. If you can agree to standards of proof, rules of engagement if you will, and succeed in disproving their theory, providing counter-evidence, they will thank you for it.

But long story short, there can be no dialogue with science if you reject it's basic tenets. It becomes a shouting match.

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster, on 20 January 2010 - 07:26 PM, said:

Terez, on 19 January 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 19 January 2010 - 12:32 AM, said:

I don't think there is anything that can be called 'empiric belief'. Unless of course you count your own trust on your own senses a belief, which I guess you could do.

This argument is as asinine as it always was, and it really has no place in a debate about a supernatural belief system vs. an empirical one. We can't always trust our senses, but that knowledge is part and parcel of empiricism. We know that we can't trust them always because we have OBSERVED that our senses can sometimes be deceived. Science that does not work often has this flaw at its root, but that's why we keep on trucking, approaching things from different angles, until we can correct such flaws.

Well of course, that's why I questioned the 'empiric belief' concept. I am confused by what AS was trying to say there, and I agree with you that empiricism doesn't really hold a belief system - it's the person having an empiric experience that holds belief about what he or she experiences. Does that make sense to you?

Sure it does. You still haven't made clear how it is relevant to this discussion, however.

Gem said:

Terez, on 19 January 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

Gem said:

so the obvious question is, who decides what is empirical? Pretty much everybody wants to secretly answer that question: me.

No, not quite. When it comes to spiritual belief...yeah. Nothing is going to make your personal belief system acceptable to anyone else, but in science, it's all about results. Nearly every post you've made on this thread has made some attempt to reduce this battle of belief systems into a philosophical vagueness, but in the context of the theory of evolution and its veracity/relevance to society, it's a bullshit argument.

Well, I think the reality is vague. But that's me.

Indeed it is you, but because it is your perception of the reality that is vague, not the reality itself.

Gem said:

Anyway, I think empirical results have very little to do with the theory of evolution.

ahhhhhhhhhh, a claim. Something that is actually relevant to the thread.

I'm going to posit that the theory of evolution is no more vague than the average scientific theory that you accept as just a part of the way the world works, and a great deal less vague than many theories that produce results that are beneficial to society. If you think that, for example, the theories of gravity and plate tectonics are just as questionable as the theory of evolution, then you are probably lost and should start a new thread about the existence or non-existence of proof and/or absolutes, and see if anyone argues with you. Knowing this forum, someone probably will (most likely a religious person, since they tend to favor absolutes more than the non-religious), but the forum has a high average level of intelligence, so that particular discussion would probably be a moot point for most of us. If you think that the theory of evolution is less valid than the theory of gravity, or the theory of plate tectonics, then I will further posit that your only real reason for thinking such a thing is a predisposition that stems from your belief in a Creator.

I think that, if you want to prove otherwise, you have a hard road to hoe, because your motive is your big fat smoking gun. And don't even try to go your trademark 'I know you are but what am I' route either because it won't fly. You will have to search long and hard to find atheists that think the theory of evolution is bogus, but I can find you a multitude of Christians who have come to the conclusion that God set evolution in motion when He created the earth, because there is no other way they can reconcile their belief in a Creator with the FACTS. That you are still on the side of the literalist fundies in this debate is honestly baffling.

Gem said:

The theory is more about beliefs than about empiric results

You speak the truth, but it is your personal truth. For YOU, the theory is more about beliefs than empirical evidence, and that is exactly why you are so opposed to it.

Gem said:

Why do you see a problem with admitting the philosophical problem of empirical data though?

Why, after all this time, do you continue to insist that we have a problem admitting the philosophical 'problems'? We have told you TIME AND TIME AGAIN that WE AGREE WITH YOU. IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. You assume that the philosophical problems of empiricism are somehow the missing link that should make us see that evolution is bogus, and that assumption is wrongheaded beyond belief. Not only is that particular link NOT MISSING, but the evidence supporting the theory is OVERWHELMING.

Gem said:

'Why it works' is a different part of science I think, again correct me if I am way off, and this is what I mean when I say empirism only can take you so far. Theories are made from the empirical data, am I right? Theories that are made from assumptions that can't really be checked aren't really considered scientific, correct? The problem arises, according to me, when a small amount of empirical data is upholding larger theoretical construct, with a lot of 'fillings'.

Give an example of such a theoretical construct. If you're claiming that the theory of evolution is such a construct, then you are wrong, as you have been shown time and time again in this thread (so that 'correct me if I am way off' bit is, at best, patronizing in the extreme, toward everyone who has valiantly and repeatedly provided a small amount MASS AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE supporting the theory). There is more than enough evidence for the theory of evolution to support its veracity, despite the fact that there are things we don't know about the evolutionary past and probably NEVER WILL. The theory is supported IN REALITY, which is QUITE UNLIKE your theory that we 'evolutionists' don't understand that our empirical experiences are subjective. That theory only has veracity in the fantasy world that you seem to live in.

PS - SORRY ABOUT ALL THE CAPS; I AM TOO LAZY FOR ITALICS TODAY.

[stone monkey]

It wasn't a subtle insult; ask anyone that knows me, I'm very far from subtle (my personal definition of the word "subtle" is: a six letter word, to be found in dictionaries) What I was doing out was pointing out the contradiction inherent in your self-avowed stance of questioning accepted social constructs when in fact what you're doing is arguing for the most widely accepted social construct. And parochialism is probably the poorest defence anyone can muster when they're discussing things on the internet with people from all over the world.

All of this postmodern posturing reminds me a little of the Sokal Affair inasmuch as it would seem that all you want the science to say (in this matter) is whatever it is you want to hear. Which is an utterly lousy way to approach the enterprise of finding out about the universe - as the Roman Catholic Church proved with its treatment of Gallileo.

[masan's saddle]

I avoid posting in this thread for my own health, I do however follow it "religiously" as it is both fascinating and educational. Anyway enough waffle, that was an excellent link SM, I was actually in uni when the whole Sokal thing happened and remember (vaguely admittedly ) discussing the whole new wave of "postmodernistic interpretist claptrap" as my prof so lovingly used to call it. Postmodernism has its merits as a mode of interpretation, particularly when addressing art, media and to a lesser extent literature. However when it comes to science and the purposes of this thread, I thought this was an illustrative quote from the link.

Quote

A curious fact about the recent left-critique of science is the degree to which its instigators have overcome their former timidity of indifference towards the subject, not by studying it in detail, but rather by creating a repetoire of rationalizations for avoiding such study

Right, i'm off back over to the primordial ooze of the Phoenix Inn.

[Gem Windcaster]

Sorry for the multiple posting I'm about to do now, I want to reply one person at a time.

Adjutant Stormy, on 21 January 2010 - 09:42 AM, said:

Dear Gem,

The reason your standard of proof is so different is because you haven't agreed to play the game. The science game, in which we generate knowledge about the world around us through repeated collection of evidence with agreed upon standards. Otherwise, one collection of evidence would be incomparable to another, one man's 'valid theory' would be another's 'total hocus pocus'.

That's a fair assessment, actually. I generally like to make up the rules as I go, just to see what happens. I do tend to follow rules when I see fit, not because society says I should. But I'm not picking sides here, I'm not making a black or white stand. And I love science. I think I've said as much before.

Adjutant Stormy, on 21 January 2010 - 09:42 AM, said:

Science is, in fact, ENTIRELY about what is actually true. That is all that a theory counts on. That is all that an experiment cares about. If it cannot be observed to be false, it cannot be presumed to be true.

Yes, I agree. Science is about what is actually true on one level, but what I was talking about is what people make it to be - I know, this is getting confusingly complicated, sorry about that. But what I wanted to say with the last couple of posts is that there's a difference between the intent of science, and what it actually turns out to be, through the works of normal, brilliant, men and women. You make it sound like every experiment is the same, but I don't even think you actually have that view of science.

Adjutant Stormy, on 21 January 2010 - 09:42 AM, said:

Quantum mechanics is not open for discussion in the absence of the theory. The theory tells us additional things, things we may not have yet had the chance to see in our experience, based on the evidence that we have collected thus far. This is true for theories in general, and it is their strength.

Duly noted.

Adjutant Stormy, on 21 January 2010 - 09:42 AM, said:

By the same token, M-theory is 'cool' but it is currently hocus pocus. It's being totally sweet, or having your favorite animal in it, or whatever doesn't matter, because that's a personal affectation.

You're probably right, so I'll leave it at that.

Adjutant Stormy, on 21 January 2010 - 09:42 AM, said:

Science is the most apersonal thing I can think of. The merits of a theory must exist in the absence of people.

But theories don't exist without people - how could they? The things that science study exists without people, but the science can't exist without people.

Adjutant Stormy, on 21 January 2010 - 09:42 AM, said:

Scientists aren't elitists. They're actually, philosophically at least, the most humble of people. If you can agree to standards of proof, rules of engagement if you will, and succeed in disproving their theory, providing counter-evidence, they will thank you for it.

That's very generalizing of you. Hmm, what does it mean to be philosophically humble in this context? I can't tell. Also, what happens if a theory can't be disproven? Because I think the theory of evolution falls into that category.

Adjutant Stormy, on 21 January 2010 - 09:42 AM, said:

But long story short, there can be no dialogue with science if you reject it's basic tenets. It becomes a shouting match.

I don't even think that a dialogue with science is possible for someone that isn't a scientist. I'm not even sure it's possible to have a dialogue with science as a scientist.

Look, I understand what you are saying, but I have the greatest respect for science and scientists. The intent of science is brilliant and wonderful. I am not rejecting it's basic tenets. But lets move on. I would like to get down to discussing the particulars.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 22 January 2010 - 10:45 PM, said:

It wasn't a subtle insult; ask anyone that knows me, I'm very far from subtle (my personal definition of the word "subtle" is: a six letter word, to be found in dictionaries) What I was doing out was pointing out the contradiction inherent in your self-avowed stance of questioning accepted social constructs when in fact what you're doing is arguing for the most widely accepted social construct. And parochialism is probably the poorest defence anyone can muster when they're discussing things on the internet with people from all over the world.

The quote goes 'not so subtle'. Read my post again.

stone monkey, on 22 January 2010 - 10:45 PM, said:

All of this postmodern posturing reminds me a little of the Sokal Affair inasmuch as it would seem that all you want the science to say (in this matter) is whatever it is you want to hear. Which is an utterly lousy way to approach the enterprise of finding out about the universe - as the Roman Catholic Church proved with its treatment of Gallileo.

No, that is not true, I want to be blown away by science. I really don't care if I'm right or not, I want the truth. My whole life has been about that, so stop using that assumption as an excuse to not listen to me; you have plenty of other arguments, use them instead.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on 21 January 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 20 January 2010 - 07:26 PM, said:

Terez, on 19 January 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 19 January 2010 - 12:32 AM, said:

I don't think there is anything that can be called 'empiric belief'. Unless of course you count your own trust on your own senses a belief, which I guess you could do.

This argument is as asinine as it always was, and it really has no place in a debate about a supernatural belief system vs. an empirical one. We can't always trust our senses, but that knowledge is part and parcel of empiricism. We know that we can't trust them always because we have OBSERVED that our senses can sometimes be deceived. Science that does not work often has this flaw at its root, but that's why we keep on trucking, approaching things from different angles, until we can correct such flaws.

Well of course, that's why I questioned the 'empiric belief' concept. I am confused by what AS was trying to say there, and I agree with you that empiricism doesn't really hold a belief system - it's the person having an empiric experience that holds belief about what he or she experiences. Does that make sense to you?

Sure it does. You still haven't made clear how it is relevant to this discussion, however.

It probably isn't. It's a sidetrack.

Terez, on 21 January 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

Gem said:

Terez, on 19 January 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

Gem said:

so the obvious question is, who decides what is empirical? Pretty much everybody wants to secretly answer that question: me.

No, not quite. When it comes to spiritual belief...yeah. Nothing is going to make your personal belief system acceptable to anyone else, but in science, it's all about results. Nearly every post you've made on this thread has made some attempt to reduce this battle of belief systems into a philosophical vagueness, but in the context of the theory of evolution and its veracity/relevance to society, it's a bullshit argument.

Well, I think the reality is vague. But that's me.

Indeed it is you, but because it is your perception of the reality that is vague, not the reality itself.

Or maybe, the difference between you and me is that I recognize the fact that my perception of reality is vague, while you refuse to see it. Because when I say 'reality is vague' it was implied that I meant my perception. Yay, semantics.

Terez, on 21 January 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

Gem said:

Anyway, I think empirical results have very little to do with the theory of evolution.

ahhhhhhhhhh, a claim. Something that is actually relevant to the thread.

I'm going to posit that the theory of evolution is no more vague than the average scientific theory that you accept as just a part of the way the world works, and a great deal less vague than many theories that produce results that are beneficial to society. If you think that, for example, the theories of gravity and plate tectonics are just as questionable as the theory of evolution, then you are probably lost and should start a new thread about the existence or non-existence of proof and/or absolutes, and see if anyone argues with you. Knowing this forum, someone probably will (most likely a religious person, since they tend to favor absolutes more than the non-religious), but the forum has a high average level of intelligence, so that particular discussion would probably be a moot point for most of us. If you think that the theory of evolution is less valid than the theory of gravity, or the theory of plate tectonics, then I will further posit that your only real reason for thinking such a thing is a predisposition that stems from your belief in a Creator.

My faith is really a solid hang-up for you guys, isn't it? I can tell you this: if it was proven to my mind beyond doubt that the theory of evolution is true, that the history of the earth happened as stated; it wouldn't change my faith one bit; not even the tiniest electron would move out of its course because of it. Secondly, I would never try to rank scientific theories. Thirdly, I think I am a bad representative of absolutes - because I would never say never about anything.

Terez, on 21 January 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

I think that, if you want to prove otherwise, you have a hard road to hoe, because your motive is your big fat smoking gun. And don't even try to go your trademark 'I know you are but what am I' route either because it won't fly. You will have to search long and hard to find atheists that think the theory of evolution is bogus, but I can find you a multitude of Christians who have come to the conclusion that God set evolution in motion when He created the earth, because there is no other way they can reconcile their belief in a Creator with the FACTS. That you are still on the side of the literalist fundies in this debate is honestly baffling.

I want the truth, Terez, I crave it. But I don't need a complete answer with pretty dots connected to believe what I believe. For me, I couldn't give a rats ass about how the earth came to be, or exactly how correct the bible is on that point. My faiths core lie elsewhere, and on a more deeper and more fundamental level than you can imagine. I don't know what you mean when you say I am on the side of the literalist fundies. Care to elaborate?

Terez, on 21 January 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

Gem said:

The theory is more about beliefs than about empiric results

You speak the truth, but it is your personal truth. For YOU, the theory is more about beliefs than empirical evidence, and that is exactly why you are so opposed to it.

No, I'm not opposed to beliefs. I've said it before in this thread. It's wonderful that you guys have something to hold on to, it can certainly be comforting. But I am guessing that you resist this description, because you don't want to hold any belief of this sort. But maybe I am wrong, I have misread people before.

Terez, on 21 January 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

Gem said:

Why do you see a problem with admitting the philosophical problem of empirical data though?

Why, after all this time, do you continue to insist that we have a problem admitting the philosophical 'problems'? We have told you TIME AND TIME AGAIN that WE AGREE WITH YOU. IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

Well fair enough, you agree with me, but I'm not so sure it is irrelevant. But okay, lets move on from that then.

Terez, on 21 January 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

You assume that the philosophical problems of empiricism are somehow the missing link that should make us see that evolution is bogus, and that assumption is wrongheaded beyond belief. Not only is that particular link NOT MISSING, but the evidence supporting the theory is OVERWHELMING.

I don't think I'll be able to make you see anything. It's your choice, and it always will be. As for evidence, I'd like to start discussing the actual evidence - is there some way we could go there? I know I am not as educated on the subject as you guys, but if we could take it one step at a time, maybe we could do it.

Terez, on 21 January 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

Gem said:

'Why it works' is a different part of science I think, again correct me if I am way off, and this is what I mean when I say empirism only can take you so far. Theories are made from the empirical data, am I right? Theories that are made from assumptions that can't really be checked aren't really considered scientific, correct? The problem arises, according to me, when a small amount of empirical data is upholding larger theoretical construct, with a lot of 'fillings'.

Give an example of such a theoretical construct. If you're claiming that the theory of evolution is such a construct, then you are wrong, as you have been shown time and time again in this thread (so that 'correct me if I am way off' bit is, at best, patronizing in the extreme, toward everyone who has valiantly and repeatedly provided a small amount MASS AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE supporting the theory). There is more than enough evidence for the theory of evolution to support its veracity, despite the fact that there are things we don't know about the evolutionary past and probably NEVER WILL. The theory is supported IN REALITY, which is QUITE UNLIKE your theory that we 'evolutionists' don't understand that our empirical experiences are subjective. That theory only has veracity in the fantasy world that you seem to live in.

I wasn't trying to be patronizing, I was trying to tone down my aggressiveness, but I can go back to kickass mode if you like. I don't think I can explain anymore what I mean without discussing detailed examples of evidence, so again, can we do this?
I know, it's horrendous of me to have opinions about something I don't even know everything about(!!!!!111oneoneone). But you'll just have to live with the fact that this is who I am. You have been avoiding discussing the particulars with me, probably because you feel I am ignorant of so much.

But I'm not afraid to go deeper into the rabbit hole, as it were; bring it on.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 23 January 2010 - 02:44 AM