News and Politics Forum

They're going for the same "Baby Step", incremental series of victories that Handgun Control Incorporated is always trying for.

So spake the ebil Christianists, before the Scopes Monkey Trial, when they alleged that the atheists were going for incremental victories where eventually ONLY evolutionist beliefs would be taught and ID would be illegal.

The difference is that those Christianists, despite the derision heaped upon them for their "paranoia", were obviously entirely correct - that is exactly what happened.  The opposite conspiracy, what the Grand Moron hyperbolically claims is the Evil Conspiracy of the Christianists to brainwash us all, is belied by the obvious point that at one time they clearly had their way, and yet were willing to relinquish it due to the rule of law.  How many times has the Grand Moron told us he'll go out shooting if he doesn't get his way?

It is also belied by the obvious point that they're not asking to silence evolutionists, only to be granted a chance to argue with them.  By what logic does he demand that statements such as "Some scientists believe that the eye is irreducibly complex, meaning that all the various parts, none of which do anything useful without the others, could not have developed spontaneously by natural selection, as there would have been no survival advantage at any intermediary stage of development" -must- be relegated to a philosophy class?  Why do they insist it's illegal, or only permitted in a "philosophy" class, to mention that when Richard Dawkins claimed to have a computer model that showed the evolutionary development of the eye, he flat-out lied?  (For the curious, what he referred to when he made that claim was in fact only a guesswork attempt to calculate how many generations it would take for evolution to produce... a retina.  Apparently under the presumption that every other piece of the eye was already in place and waiting for the retina to develop).

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (07-10-2008 05:40 PM)

MC Escher wrote:

If a guy wants to burgle your house and is having trouble getting past the property line fence; do you ignore him until he manages to reach the silverware? Or do you recognize him for what he is and nip the problem in the bud?

That would depend on how strongly I assess his chances of effectively bypassing the various hurdles I've put in place that lay after the fence and before the silverware.

MC Escher wrote:

Slap wrote:

I think it would be ideal to teach people philosophy prior to attempting to teach them science, or the Rules of Evidence.

It would be sufficient if they merely kept the different subjects separate.

Why insist on strict separation of subjects instead of asking whether a particular lesson or idea is worth teaching?  Science isn't sacred.

MC Escher wrote:

It would also be entirely reasonable to have an elective course, even in high school; titled something like this:
"Science and Spirituality: How do we reconcile what we know about the world through science with what we feel about it through religion and philosophy?"

Or just start every Science education with Socrates, confronting his fellow citizens who initially don't even recognize their own ignorance or the relationship between their arts and philosophy.

zukiphile wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

If a guy wants to burgle your house and is having trouble getting past the property line fence; do you ignore him until he manages to reach the silverware? Or do you recognize him for what he is and nip the problem in the bud?

This requires that you have correctly assessed his intent.
If you are wrong and it was just a gimp soliciting donations for muscular dystrophy, blowing him away at the fence gate is not doing him substantial justice.

A) It's an ANALOGY.
B) Your complaint is only valid if the choice of response is binary.



You've yet to support your view of science of any stripe as objective fact.  I am open to discussing it, but you've not responded to the prior invitations to do so. 

MY view?
Is it your assertion that "science of any stripe" is NOT objective fact?
Seriously?

Quinn -

Don't you have some questions to answer before you go around analyzing things?

MC Escher wrote:

So if I measure the temperature of an object at 150 degrees, that's not objective fact?

If I measure an objects rate of fall at 32 feet per second per second, that's not an objective fact?

If I measure the speed of light at approximately 300,000kps in a vacuum, that's not an objective fact?

No, it isn't "objective fact" becuase it isn't objective.  It restates perceptions which categorically occur in a subject.

MC Escher wrote:

That's ALL faith?

No.

The question implies a shift in your position, which prominently featured an insertion of any "faith" into an undefined "science".

If science were "objective fact" how could its positions change?

zukiphile wrote:

The question implies a shift in your position...

How so?

zukiphile wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

So if I measure the temperature of an object at 150 degrees, that's not objective fact?

If I measure an objects rate of fall at 32 feet per second per second, that's not an objective fact?

If I measure the speed of light at approximately 300,000kps in a vacuum, that's not an objective fact?

No, it isn't "objective fact" because it isn't objective.  It restates perceptions which categorically occur in a subject.

EXCUSE me?


You had BETTER be making that argument from a Heisenbergian viewpoint.


Because if you aren't, then you are either:

a) Not as educated outside of your area of expertise as I had always assumed, or far more likely;
b) You are taking an existentialist viewpoint on this entire thread.



If that's the case then...

Seriously Matt...  FUCK YOU. That's not a friendly "Fuck You", that's a "Don't ever again drag me into the never ending circle jerk of existentialism when we have to TYPE OUR FUCKING STATEMENTS!" type of "Fuck You".

MC Escher wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

So if I measure the temperature of an object at 150 degrees, that's not objective fact?

If I measure an objects rate of fall at 32 feet per second per second, that's not an objective fact?

If I measure the speed of light at approximately 300,000kps in a vacuum, that's not an objective fact?

No, it isn't "objective fact" because it isn't objective.  It restates perceptions which categorically occur in a subject.

EXCUSE me?

Happy to.

MC Escher wrote:

You had BETTER be making that argument from a Heisenbergian viewpoint.


Because if you aren't, then you are either:

a) Not as educated outside of your area of expertise as I had always assumed, or far more likely;
b) You are taking an existentialist viewpoint on this entire thread.

My position is not limited to Heisenberg's observation.

The idea that one must be an existentialist, a "Heisenbergian", or poorly educated leaves out other possibilites of which I believe you are aware.  I am not an existentiaist btw.

MC Escher wrote:

If that's the case then...

Seriously Matt...  FUCK YOU. That's not a friendly "Fuck You", that's a "Don't ever again drag me into the never ending circle jerk of existentialism when we have to TYPE OUR FUCKING STATEMENTS!" type of "Fuck You".

While that detached patience is appreciated, it does little to address the claim of science as "objective fact".

That you would list subjective perceptions as evidence of objectivity indicates some distance between what you know with any certainty and what you believe to exist objectively.  Do we agree on that much?

zukiphile wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

That's ALL faith?

No.

The question implies a shift in your position, which prominently featured an insertion of any "faith" into an undefined "science".

If science were "objective fact" how could its positions change?

MC Escher wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

The question implies a shift in your position...

How so?

Your original objection was to an insertion of any faith into "science" which would imply "science" to be a knowledge without any faith.  To list observations, and ask whether "That's ALL faith?" signals a retreat to a position, more reasonable imo, that "science" necessarily relies on some beliefs that it simply assumes, i.e. takes on faith, but that it has other bases as well.

If you would like to continue the conversation, a fine place to do it would be to respond to

zukiphile wrote:

If science were "objective fact" how could its positions change?

zukiphile wrote:

That you would list subjective perceptions as evidence of objectivity indicates some distance between what you know with any certainty and what you believe to exist objectively.  Do we agree on that much?
....

zukiphile wrote:

If science were "objective fact" how could its positions change?

Well played Zuker, well played.

MC Escher wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

That you would list subjective perceptions as evidence of objectivity indicates some distance between what you know with any certainty and what you believe to exist objectively.  Do we agree on that much?
....

Well played Zuker, well played.

I have to be honest here, and admit that I find the idea that you think that was 'Well Played" to be frankly infuriating.


He's really not having an honest discussion, he's playing word games.

Asking you to explain your assertions whether about science or "objective facts", is not a word game and certainly not dishonest.

MC Escher wrote:

He asks; "If science were "objective fact" how could its positions change?"


Problems with that:

a) "Science" is not "Objective Fact", Science is BASED UPON Objective fact.

You listed three perceptions.  Do you agree that any perception is subjective?


Even if we assume "objective facts", the model used to explain those facts are necessarily constructs of an individual, a subject.  Do you disagree?

MC Escher wrote:

b) His use of the word "Position". Do you really think that he thinks that the Earth's gravity is not 9.8m/s^2? Do you really think that he thinks that water is not composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? So what POSITION is he talking about?

I think the gravity calculation is a description of a perception of a falling object.

MC Escher wrote:

It is uncontroverted that as we learn more and new facts come to light and we better understand things that scientists will modify, change or even completely discard a theory.

Since that isn't a peculiarly scientific trait, it doesn't just describe science.

MC Escher wrote:

But even when science "believes" something that later turns out to be wrong, that "belief" is BASED upon actual facts.

Like a the facts of ether or spontaneous generation?

I would hold that perception and understanding have an effect on one another, and that it isn't a one way street.

The idea of "objective fact" is one you offered.  Would you still like to claim it?

I'm just asking questions; it isn't meant as a game.

glfredrick wrote:

You are mixing physical science with speculative science.

Curiously, I see you and MC on the same side of this issue.

Lots of normal science would seem to require a degree of imagination, introspection and speculation about how standard models work, in addition to belief (even if only contingent) in those models.

Meeting starting - later.