|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2004 : 12:30:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sanke:
Why is it important to know where we came from?
The reasons are many. Knowing, for example, that we and the great apes have a common ancestor allows us to study our closest relatives and sort out what parts of our behavior we share. That information gives us insight in to why we behave the way we do. Knowing why we behave the way we do is information we need to effect change or to at least understand ourselves and our place in nature. That is a good thing. Without that information we may live isolated from our nature and vulnerable to all sort of false explanations for why we are the way we are. The more we know, the less we rely on superstition and 2000 year old books to explain what we are.
And that is just one reason... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Maglev
Skeptic Friend
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 13:46:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Sanke:
Why is it important to know where we came from?
The reasons are many. Knowing, for example, that we and the great apes have a common ancestor allows us to study our closest relatives and sort out what parts of our behavior we share.
Good point. It also enables us to at least get a hint as to what, in our behavior, is learned and what is more 'biological', ie, passed on in our genes. I've often been suprised to see how people react when faced with an animal doing something very 'human'. The best example I can come up with is the sexual behavior of my all-time favourite ape, the Bonobo. Yes, the masturbating monkey. Many people are put-off by this ape, specificaly people who see sex as something dirty, wrong. Its behavior tells us that sex is a very natural thing, and that there is nothing wrong in getting pleasure from it.
Studying our ancestors, as well as closely related species may give us great insights about what it means the be a human being, without feeling guilty about our 'natural' behevior. |
Maglev
"The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
--Douglas Adams, on evolutionary biology. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 16:01:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave,
I wasn't saying that there's proof that an omnipotent being is trying to contact us, I'm just saying that some people claim it. Also, yes, science only applies to observable facts. I cannot yet physically observe God (I use the term loosely) neither can I physically observe that the Earth has a liquid core. I might be able to experiment on the core in twenty or thirty years, but even that's extrapolation. Sorry, gotta go, but there's more I wish to say.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2004 : 20:31:44 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
I wasn't saying that there's proof that an omnipotent being is trying to contact us, I'm just saying that some people claim it.
I understand that, but a scientific organization such as NASA will only be interested in what it can observe. The claims people make are observable, in themselves, but would be more likely to be a subject of interest to the social scientists than the rocket scientists.quote:
Also, yes, science only applies to observable facts. I cannot yet physically observe God (I use the term loosely) neither can I physically observe that the Earth has a liquid core. I might be able to experiment on the core in twenty or thirty years, but even that's extrapolation.
That's specifically why I added "or its effects." We can observe Earth's core, in that only a liquid iron core makes sense when one considers the Earth's magnetic field (and its historic record), seismograph data, the distance and speed of the Moon, etc.. We can then make predictions about what effects would be seen if (a) the core really were liquid iron, and (b) a certain event occured. We then either wait for that event, or make it happen ourselves, and if our predictions are correct, we add the data as more indirect observations that the core is, indeed, liquid iron. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 06:31:42 [Permalink]
|
Hippy said:
quote:
Also, yes, science only applies to observable facts. I cannot yet physically observe God (I use the term loosely) neither can I physically observe that the Earth has a liquid core. I might be able to experiment on the core in twenty or thirty years, but even that's extrapolation.
Science is about observation, experimentation, hyothesis/theory and 'laws'. We do not need to observe the molten core of the earth to know that it exisist. A theory is made and experimentation is carried out to see if the theory 'holds water'. If it is a good then predictions can be made based on the theory. If these predictions pan out then the theory is strengthened.
We cannot see neutrons or protrons, but we know that they exisist, based on the Atomic Theory. This theory is the backbone of chemistry and physics and responsible for many of our modern conveniences.
Science does not have to directly observe God. All that is needed is indirect evidence that could be used to formulate a theory. The current theory of the existence of God has not been provable. Pat Robertson has used this theory to make several predictions such as,
1. Orlando will be hit by a hurricane because the city gave some rights to gays. No hurricane.
2. Prayer can influence the course of a hurricane. A hurricane hit the city of his ministry, dispite the prayers of him and his followers. Another swing and a miss.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 14:13:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave, furhsur,
I would maintain that without direct observation, one could never say for sure that any such thing occurs. The reason for this is that the possibility remains that it works for some other reason than what we are not aware of. Now, I am willing to say that a certain theory is the best possible explanation currently available, but that does not make it fact. The Rubber Band-Big Bang theory, I've heard, has recently been disproved by scientists; not Creation scientists, just scientists. I don't know what the situation is, but I think that it has something to do with new Dopplar evidence obtained.
And I know you'd say that it was never claimed that the Big Bang theory is a fact, but it's just an example of how new evidence can change what was thought to be a fact. There are plenty of court cases where new evidence arises and changes the verdict. If there had been direct observation, that would have been sufficient evidence the first time.
Another point that I would like to make: science is not the only way to obtain truth. You can know that something is true by using logic, some truths are just implanted on you that you start out knowing, like the fact that you exist. You can't scientifically prove that you exist, that you love your wife, or the origin of the universe. To answer these questions, we use (some) philosophy, (a lot of) logic, and truths that are "self-evident".
I do not claim to be making a scientific arguement. But neither am I saying that science is wrong. I will trust any direct measurement to be what it is. If you say that uranium decays at a measurable rate, and that you have found uranium with ratios of a daughter isotope, I'll believe you. But to say that you can tell the age of a surrounding object from that? That is extrapolation and assumption. Now, it may be the best explanation, but it isn't the only explanation, and it isn't fact. It is possible that the universe was created by an omnipotent being, and that it was created with apparent age. I'm not saying that's what happened, I really don't even like the theory all that much, but it's possible. Therefore, since there is more than one possibility, than neither possibility is a historical fact. You see? Logic. Can you agree with what I've said so far?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 18:12:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hippy4christ:
There are plenty of court cases where new evidence arises and changes the verdict. If there had been direct observation, that would have been sufficient evidence the first time.
It is turning out that eye witness testimony is not as reliable as was once thought. Many of the court verdicts being overturned are because we now have better forensics then were available at the time of trial. DNA evidence trumps eye witness testimony. So do other methods forensic scientists use to determine what happened. And while the forensic evidence can be observed, there is no direct observation of the event by these scientists... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 20:20:35 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
And I know you'd say that it was never claimed that the Big Bang theory is a fact, but it's just an example of how new evidence can change what was thought to be a fact.
Absolutely. Contrast it with religions, in which new evidence is largely ignored, and "facts" remain "facts" despite it. The only dogma associated with science are two assumptions, which I will return to in a moment. Scientists, on the other hand, can be just as dogmatic in their beliefs as any other kind of person, rejecting perfectly good evidence because it doesn't fit their preferences, or accepting false evidence because it does.quote:
There are plenty of court cases where new evidence arises and changes the verdict. If there had been direct observation, that would have been sufficient evidence the first time.
Not quite. Science sometimes looks like a court case, but often the similarity is superficial. "Judgements" in science are made upon the weight of the evidence, and not on a popularity contest in which 12 people can "send a message" despite what the evidence says.quote:
Another point that I would like to make: science is not the only way to obtain truth. You can know that something is true by using logic, some truths are just implanted on you that you start out knowing, like the fact that you exist. You can't scientifically prove that you exist, that you love your wife, or the origin of the universe. To answer these questions, we use (some) philosophy, (a lot of) logic, and truths that are "self-evident".
And sometimes, we just guess. Good scientists readily admit that there are questions which science cannot answer.quote:
I do not claim to be making a scientific arguement. But neither am I saying that science is wrong. I will trust any direct measurement to be what it is. If you say that uranium decays at a measurable rate, and that you have found uranium with ratios of a daughter isotope, I'll believe you. But to say that you can tell the age of a surrounding object from that? That is extrapolation and assumption. Now, it may be the best explanation, but it isn't the only explanation, and it isn't fact. It is possible that the universe was created by an omnipotent being, and that it was created with apparent age. I'm not saying that's what happened, I really don't even like the theory all that much, but it's possible. Therefore, since there is more than one possibility, than neither possibility is a historical fact. You see? Logic. Can you agree with what I've said so far?
Partly. The part I have difficulty with is the assumption that because there is more than one possibility, then all possibilities are equally likely. I'm sure you'll have a problem with that, also, because it means that it is as equally likely that Satan (the stereotype of the Devil) is the one who created this universe. Just as it's equally likely that the Pope is right about all matters of doctrine.
And don't forget that the Big Bang theory does not say, "there is no God." God, for all we know, caused the Big Bang to happen (and thus it's possible that by doubting the Big Bang, you are doubting evidence which God meant for us to find and understand). Simply put, the Big Bang theory does not assume God exists, but it also doesn't require that God not exist. The Big Bang theory neither addresses the question of God's existence, nor does it conflict with God's existence (except through a literal reading of Genesis, which is a different subject).
The only dogma central to science are (A) that the universe exists in some sort of objective way, and (B) that the laws which appear to rule the universe do not change. The first, of course, is dealt with by your first two questions in this thread. Using the assumption that there is no objective universe gets us exactly nowhere. Solopsism cannot be the basis for a science.
The second is the idea that the laws behind the events and effects we can measure for ourselves have worked the same way no matter how far back in time you go, and no matter where in the universe you are. If, for example, mixing red and green light in a dark room on Earth gives you yellow light (to a human observer), it'll also do so on Mars, on anywhere in the Andromeda galaxy, or 10 billion years ago on some unnamed rock.
There is, as of yet, no evidence which shows otherwise. There is no good evidence which demonstrates, for example, that the speed of light in a vacuum has ever changed, or that the decay rates of radioactive atoms have ever been other than what we measure right now. There are Nobel Prizes waiting for the people who discover such things, they'd be vastly important.
And it is because of that second assumption that when people claim that God may have made everything look old, they're actually attacking a basic scientific assumption. An assumption which has never been overturned in the last 200 years. Yes, it is possible it'll be overturned tomorrow, but basing one's assumptions on such remote possibilities is akin to assuming that you don't need to work, since it's possible you'll hit the lottery someday, and be able to pay off all current and future debts.
Besides which, if God made the universe so it looks old, why did He do so? It looks, by the way, exactly like scientists think it should look if it were very old. The Earth looks like it's had billions of years of history. While I understand that God is ineffable, if He placed false evidence all over the universe, for whatever reason, He looks like a deceiver.
As may have already been mentioned here, Creationist geologists were the first ones to suggest that Bishop Ussher was wrong in his 6,000-year age. These were people who were trying to better understand God's Creation, but who found evidence of tremendous age that they couldn't deny. No more than I can deny that the Bible is a very popular book, no matter how much I wish that such weren't the case.
Time to stop. I'm rambling. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 12:58:35 [Permalink]
|
Kil:
True, while eyewitness testimony may not be satisfactory evidence in a courtroom, it may be satisfactory evidence for the eyewitness.
Dave:
If I gave the impression that I thought that two possibilities are equal, oops. I believe I said
quote:
I am willing to say that a certain theory is the best possible explanation currently available, but that does not make it fact.
My point is that when there is more than one possible solution, no solution is fact. While Creationism may seem more likely to me, someone with a better knowledge of science might think that the Big Bang is more likely. An undeniable anwer has not yet been found, and as long as we both admit it, we'll be doing okay. Let me repeat: just because there's more than one possibility doesn't mean that both possibilities are equally likely; one can be more likely than the other, but we're aren't absolutely sure about either.
Your examples of science's dogmas are good to bring up. Neither of us have any proof that the universe exists in an objective form, but we both agree that it is better to assume that we do than assume that we don't. And we agree to consider our existence a fact as far as we are concerned in our talkings.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2004 : 15:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
My point is that when there is more than one possible solution, no solution is fact. While Creationism may seem more likely to me, someone with a better knowledge of science might think that the Big Bang is more likely. An undeniable anwer has not yet been found, and as long as we both admit it, we'll be doing okay. Let me repeat: just because there's more than one possibility doesn't mean that both possibilities are equally likely; one can be more likely than the other, but we're aren't absolutely sure about either.
Please accept my apologies for misinterpreting you.
However: it is possible, for example, that no evolution would occur if life were left to itself, and all the evolution we can see occuring today is due to God specifically tweaking DNA here and there. Yet biologists consider evolution to be a fact. Similarly, we can measure the redshift to all sorts of galaxies, and astronomers consider it a fact that the universe is expanding, but it is possible that everything we see beyond the orbit of, say, Pluto is some sort of Divine mirage.
This sort of thing can be continued, for every scientific "fact" there is. Science doesn't really deal in "undeniable answers," as there's no way to prove anything with absolute certainty. As many people have said, a "fact" is any observation which has been confirmed to such a great extent (by mounds of evidence) that it would be unreasonable to deny it (at the present time).
Not that facts do not change. 100 years ago, it was unreasonable to think that the continents move. It took more than 30 years for Alfred Wegener's ideas about continental drift to be widely accepted as "fact" by geologists. However, it was all about evidence: there is a lot of evidence for plate tectonics, which simply hadn't been found prior to Wegener's death.
It's still possible that the continents don't move, but is it reasonable to think that decades of measurements which all say they are moving are all wrong?quote:
Your examples of science's dogmas are good to bring up. Neither of us have any proof that the universe exists in an objective form, but we both agree that it is better to assume that we do than assume that we don't. And we agree to consider our existence a fact as far as we are concerned in our talkings.
Right. If those basic things cannot be agreed upon, there's no foundation for discussion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 11:04:35 [Permalink]
|
Hippy said,
quote:
My point is that when there is more than one possible solution, no solution is fact. While Creationism may seem more likely to me, someone with a better knowledge of science might think that the Big Bang is more likely. An undeniable anwer has not yet been found, and as long as we both admit it, we'll be doing okay.
You are implying that if there is no undeniable fact for a certain phenomina the any solution is equally as likely. This logic has a huge hole in it.
There are massive amounts of data that indicates the big bang occurred billions of years ago. Is it possible that we are getting it wrong? Sure. Just because it is possible that we could be wrong, it is not just as likely that universe we observe is actually a movie projected onto a screen built by giant aliens that are all named Bob.
This is related to the difference between fact and opinion. Two of my friends were discussing the shortest route from one spot in the city to the next. They both said, "in my opinion this is the shortest route". That has nothing to do with opinions, the fact is one way is shorter and one is longer (OK, they could be the same). Just because you choose to BELIEVE in the bibles version of creation this does not put it on equal footing with theories that are based on verifiable data.
Tanks.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 14:51:49 [Permalink]
|
furshur:
You said: quote:
You are implying that if there is no undeniable fact for a certain phenomena the any solution is equally as likely.
In my previous post, I specifically said that that wasn't what I was thinking.
Dave:
The next subject that I bring up is what should we consider fact, and what will be our definition of fact. An absolute definition of fact would probably be something like "information that is completely true." While we know that the possibility exists that this is all somebody else's dream, we have no reason to believe so. I propose a defenition of fact that we will use on this thread: "information that is true, and for which there is no substantial reason for why it isn't true." Would everyone agree with that?
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2004 : 15:02:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Another point that I would like to make: science is not the only way to obtain truth.
Science is not meant to be used to obtain "truth".
Science is meant to be used as a way to create an objective description of the world.
I usually say "Truth is in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty." There is no such thing as absolute truth, because we all carry our own definition of what truth is. It is subject to our own, or someone else's point of view, therefore always subjective. This is something that fundies(tm) have a really hard time grasping. They base their whole existence on the inerrancy of the Bible. It's right down foolish, because it can not ever be without error. The Bible as "truth" is subject to the definition of the truth of the person who wrote the part you are reading, and all the persons involved in copying, editing and translating it.
quote:
You can know that something is true by using logic, some truths are just implanted on you that you start out knowing, like the fact that you exist.
But any construct you do with logic will be subject to circular reasoning unless you apply at least one axiom to be used as an anchor. The fact that you exist can not be used for anything much.
I exist, therefore God exist?
quote:
You can't scientifically prove that you exist, that you love your wife, or the origin of the universe.
That depends entirely on how many assumptions you are willing to make. By the way, what do you mean by "prove"? It is my experience that "proof" has different meanings when you compare a scientist with a theist. I bet there are many biologists and psychologists who can explain many aspects of the love you have for you wife.
The only science that has any kind of "real proof", as in true-or-false, ones-or-zeros, binary states, is mathematics.
That is the only discipline where you have anything that comes close to absolute proof.
quote:
I do not claim to be making a scientific arguement. But neither am I saying that science is wrong. I will trust any direct measurement to be what it is. If you say that uranium decays at a measurable rate, and that you have found uranium with ratios of a daughter isotope, I'll believe you. But to say that you can tell the age of a surrounding object from that? That is extrapolation and assumption.
As for the uranium isotopes found in a piece of rock, one of the first, basic assumptions that is to be made is the assumption that the uranium was put there before the rock got solid. That is not an unreasonable assumption, is it?
Carbon dating and dating by means of year-rings on trees have been used to verify each other in a very neat fashion by extrapolating, yet without using circular reasoning or circular referencing, and without the assumption that one is a correct method by default.
quote:
Now, it may be the best explanation, but it isn't the only explanation, and it isn't fact. It is possible that the universe was created by an omnipotent being, and that it was created with apparent age. I'm not saying that's what happened, I really don't even like the theory all that much, but it's possible.
But what is the point of such an exercise? Occam's Razor quickly cuts that one to shreds. There is no point in making a theory that can not be tested or verified.
quote:
Therefore, since there is more than one possibility, than neither possibility is a historical fact. You see? Logic.
Ehh... No I don't see.
What point are you trying to make? That because you have two possibilities, neither could be considered a historical fact?
On the other hand, if you had only one explanation, is that one automatically a historical fact? Well, it is not in my book.
The one (and only) explanation might be the best possible explanation at that time, but even that explanation is subject to the flaws of whoever created or presented the explanation.
Before the dawn of science, people thought comets were messages or omens from God. It was the only explanation available. By your definition, could it have been considered a historical fact? Yes, at least by the standard of science used back then. Was it a correct explanation? Hell no. We have through research come to the conclusion that what was considered historical fact was just wishful thinking.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 13:01:31 [Permalink]
|
Dr:
I disagree with your definition of truth. What you're describing is people's views of truth. At the JFK assassination, many people had different ideas about what happened, which shots came from where. But if you believe in an objective universe, you would have to agree that the shooting happened a particular way. It is true that JFK was shot; the manner in which he was shot is up to interpretation. In that way, I say that science is used to obtain truth. You can use science to discover what makes up orange juice, and then when you observe the ingredients of orange juice, it will be true that that is what orange juice is made of. Of course, the possibility exists that a new mutant breed of oranges will arise, and science should take that into account.
The only assumptions I know of that are required for logic is that you exist and that the universe has Laws of Nature. I believe that those are the same assumptions that science operates under. What other assumptions to you say that logic operates on?
Yes, 'proof' is another thing which we must define. I propose that the definition of 'proof' to be used in this thread is "evidence which establishes a truth beyond all reasonable doubt." 'Truth' in that statement is used as I stated earlier; speaking of which, do you agree with my stated definition of 'truth', and if not, what changes would you make, and why?
If there's only one explanation, is it fact? No. But if there are two viable explanations, neither are fact. I would even go so far as to say that the better explanation should be held as the one to be believed, but it should not be considered fact.
As to scientific dating vs. theological dating: radiometric dating methods assume that radioactive material was evenly spread out through the pool of matter that the solar system originated from. Even there, the assumption is made that the universe was created a certain way. Theological dating assumes that the Creator has the ability to change the laws of nature because It is the author of those laws. Both of these theories are based on assumptions, and I don't yet have enough evidence to conclude either way.
Hippy
|
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2004 : 13:20:18 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
The next subject that I bring up is what should we consider fact, and what will be our definition of fact. An absolute definition of fact would probably be something like "information that is completely true." While we know that the possibility exists that this is all somebody else's dream, we have no reason to believe so. I propose a defenition of fact that we will use on this thread: "information that is true, and for which there is no substantial reason for why it isn't true." Would everyone agree with that?
It appears to be much the same as the definition I provided earlier, so I would agree with it.quote:
Yes, 'proof' is another thing which we must define. I propose that the definition of 'proof' to be used in this thread is "evidence which establishes a truth beyond all reasonable doubt." 'Truth' in that statement is used as I stated earlier; speaking of which, do you agree with my stated definition of 'truth', and if not, what changes would you make, and why?
In your opinion, is "it is possible that the Bible is mostly fiction" a reasonable doubt or not?quote:
If there's only one explanation, is it fact? No.
Sometimes, yes, by your definition(s).quote:
But if there are two viable explanations, neither are fact.
This depends on your standards for determining the viability of an explanation.quote:
I would even go so far as to say that the better explanation should be held as the one to be believed, but it should not be considered fact.
That depends on your standards for determining which explanation is "better." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
