|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2007 : 08:44:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| In the end as skeptics, we must realise. There is no real knowledge. There is only what is most reasonable to believe. |
This is what has frustrated me many of time whilst discussing the subject of fish-to-philosopher evolution on this forum. I understand that critters such as HH and dude are beyond any doubt that fish-to-philosopher is the most reasonable to believe, ok fine, they have their conclusion. But the way they parade the fish-to-philosopher "theory" of Evolution around as empirical fact and refuse to acknowledge that they, in reality, have no real knowledge, and therefore are speculating on what they find most reasonable, is what frustrates me. Add to this the fact that anyone who does not tow the fish-to-philosopher theory lock stock and barrel is certified "insane." And so I would agree, it sounds like a clear cut case of indoctrination for these guys.
|
Well, you also don't have any real knowledge at all that gravity really exists (in spite of using it daily, I'm sure), that electrons really do travel through the circuit boards of your computer, which you are unquestionably using, that information is traveling from your keyboard to said circuits, over a wire or a wireless connection to a server somewhere, to be processed and posted in this forum.
For all you know, the Magic Byte Pixies could be doing it and everything I studied in my years of computer science is a lie, as is everything studied before me in the fields of Physics and Chemistry. For all you know, you're simply a figment of the imagination of some hyperintelligent shade of the color blue.
Why should it be any different with evolution? We can't be 100% sure that evolution does happen. That we've established already. But we're fairly certain and we don't really know any other way to explain the results and yes, the evidence we get, so we stick to it until - if - something better comes along.
So, what is it then that you find unreasonable about it and why do you think it's unreasonable? Why evolution and not, say, electromagnetism or the theory of gravity has come under your doubts? What makes the evidence we do have unacceptable to you? The fact it's incomplete? We expect that. We're working on it. We aren't gods; we can't do everything. We can't know everything.
What do you imagine, considering all limitations of humanity in general, would be acceptable evidence for it? (And please, no dog-gives-birth-to-cat; that would be a great proof against evolution, after all, quite counterproductive.) We know what would disprove it; the good old Devonian bunny. Or do you suggest we simply abandon this field of study because we can never know anything about it, wrap it up and get over it? I'd rather they didn't; my health depends on it, as does that of many people. Or, conversely, if you really do think evolution is wrong, how do you think life came along? Except we aren't talking hypotheses here. We aren't talking what-ifs; this isn't really the Discworld. We're talking an idea with some empirical, solid explanation. We're talking something that can be tested. Something that can be verified. Because if it isn't, then what good is it? We're talking... science.
If it's only the attitude of evolution defenders and people in this fora that you find wrong, then you may have a point, even if it doesn't affect in the least the reality or lack thereof of evolution. I do agree saying everyone who doesn't agree with it or goes against it is insane may be too much. But then, we're people and I dare say most of us is sick and tired of the same rehashed arguments, resistence to learn and hostile attitude we get. Maybe some people are overracting. But that doesn't make evolution any more or less real.
But the problem isn't the physics, the chemistry or the biology in it, is it? The problem is that evolution deals with life. And life, for some inexplicable reason (to me) is held to be "special". Divine, even. Frankly, I'd guess that for a omnipotent being, the difference between life and no-life would be utterly negligible, but that's my opinion and, not being an omnipotent being (as none of us are), I wouldn't know. I can only imagine. In any case, methinks people resent seeing life isn't that special after all - that it isn't that divine. How many people have not used the argument that evolution cheapens life or leads to terrible things? I'm not saying anyone has used these arguments here, they're obviously fallacious, but I've seen it and it doesn't surprise me in the least.
In essence, what I'm trying to say here - and excuse me, Bill, for using your post as a springboard to my diatribe - is that the most (not all) rejection of evolution isn't based on logic or science itself but on psychological factors (I'm not saying anyone is insane for not believing it; I'm speculating there might be deeper rooted causes for such... unrelenting denial, in some cases). Those usually are either ignorance (people don't know all the variables involved or don't understand how it works and assume something is inherently wrong about it) or simple fear. Fear that life isn't that special, fear there's nothing divine about it, regardless of creed; fear of the unknown, fear that the status quo of one's beliefs will be shattered. Incomprehension often leads to intolerance, doesn't it?
I'm not saying people should not question, either; they should. All the time. But there's a line between questioning something reasonably and simply shutting your ears and singing 'lalalalala' when you don't like the answer, or throwing everything away because a fine-point that isn't even that relevant to the theory as a whole has not been adequately explained yet and this line is often muddled to the point of sheer denial. It's sad, at least I think so, but it happens.
Well, sorry about the rant, the grammatical errors and such. I rest my case.
[ just for the records; I wrote this before seeing Bill's last post - and the latter paragraphs are not directly aimed at you, Bill, just divagations of my own. The questions, however, are in whatever you think is pertinent to answer. ] |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 10/29/2007 08:53:35 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 09:56:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Just so we are clear here, I fully accept the empirical evidence we have observed in TOE as far as explaining the adaptation of critters to certain environments etc... What I question is the speculative evidence and assuming that go into the fish-to-philosopher portion of it. |
And thus, in your attempt to be clear, you muddy the waters. Both you and Coelacanth have referred to "speculative evidence," but neither will say exactly what that is? How, precisely, can evidence be speculative?
Googling for it, it seems that "speculative evidence" is a term of law, perhaps relating to expert-witness testimony that something could have happened some way. But in science, 'speculation' and 'evidence' are antonyms, so "speculative evidence" is a contradiction in terms when applied to biology.
So, Bill, I challenge you to present anything within the theory of evolution that is either "speculative evidence" or is an assumption. Your say-so that such things exist within the science isn't good enough. Prove they exist.| because neither God nor an unidentified designer is an empirical premise. |
I don't recall ever claiming that it was. If I did then I was sorely mistaken. |
I never said that you claimed that.| A little sarcasm, sorry. I have already acknowledged that I consider TOE to have been observed and empirical, just not the fish-to-philosopher part of it. |
And thus you demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the word "empirical."| Yet you haven't demonstrated a lack of "real knowledge" (whatever you really mean by that). You simply assert this as a "fact," and then run with it. |
So are you saying that the fish-to-phlospher portion of TOE is without any assumption or has a zero factor of speculation involved? |
What does that have to do with the fact that you claimed that Dude and HH have no "real knowledge" without supporting your claim? I'll answer for you: it doesn't have anything to do with what you claimed, it's your attempt to duck out of your claim without losing face.| This would appear to make you no different from the people you're attacking, Bill. |
Why? I don't claim to hold empirical information to the notion of God and/or a designer. Nor do I consider that which I find more reasonable to belive enough reason to label someone insane. |
I never addressed either, Bill. What do they have to do with what I was talking about? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 11:12:16 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| And thus, in your attempt to be clear, you muddy the waters. Both you and Coelacanth have referred to "speculative evidence," but neither will say exactly what that is? How, precisely, can evidence be speculative? |
| Googling for it, it seems that "speculative evidence" is a term of law, perhaps relating to expert-witness testimony that something could have happened some way. But in science, 'speculation' and 'evidence' are antonyms, so "speculative evidence" is a contradiction in terms when applied to biology. |
Assuming that matches and gasoline found at the sight of a fire are involved in the setting of the actual fire itself, with no other evidence offered, would be speculative. Maybe I didn't choose my words clear enough for you, Dave. My point was/is evidence does not always remove speculation. Two people can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. A can of gasoline and matches found at the scene of a fire could most definitely be called evidence. Assuming that the matches and the gasoline were involved in the cause of the fire is speculating with that evidence. How about rather then "speculative evidence" I say they can speculate based on the evidence. With, or without, evidence speculating is still speculating.
| So, Bill, I challenge you to present anything within the theory of evolution that is either "speculative evidence" or is an assumption. Your say-so that such things exist within the science isn't good enough. Prove they exist |
Before we head down that endless tangent I think you can answer your own question here, so are saying that no speculation or assumptions exist in the fish-to-philosopher debate?
| because neither God nor an unidentified designer is an empirical premise. |
I don't recall ever claiming that it was. If I did then I was sorely mistaken. |
I never said that you claimed that. |
And I am sure you that will agree with me that neither is fish-to-philosopher evolution.
| A little sarcasm, sorry. I have already acknowledged that I consider TOE to have been observed and empirical, just not the fish-to-philosopher part of it. |
And thus you demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the word "empirical."
Yet you haven't demonstrated a lack of "real knowledge" (whatever you really mean by that). You simply assert this as a "fact," and then run with it. |
So are you saying that the fish-to-philosopher portion of TOE is without any assumption or has a zero factor of speculation involved? |
What does that have to do with the fact that you claimed that Dude and HH have no "real knowledge" without supporting your claim?
I'll answer for you: it doesn't have anything to do with what you claimed, it's your attempt to duck out of your claim without losing face.
This would appear to make you no different from the people you're attacking, Bill. |
1. Do you acknowledge that fish-to-philosopher evolution has any speculation and/or assumption(s) in the hypothisis? If no then there is no real reason for us to proceed.
2. If the theory has just one assumption then it is assuming, period.
3. dude and HH believe fish-to-philosopher evolution to be true, even though there is a degree of assumption and speculation involved. That equates to no "real knowledge." They believe it to be true but they don't know that it is true.
| Why? I don't claim to hold empirical information to the notion of God and/or a designer. Nor do I consider that which I find more reasonable to believe enough reason to label someone insane. |
I never addressed either, Bill. What do they have to do with what I was talking about? |
Because I was addressing both when you chimed in. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 11:46:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Assuming that matches and gasoline found at the sight of a fire are involved in the setting of the actual fire itself, with no other evidence offered, would be speculative. Maybe I didn't choose my words clear enough for you, Dave. My point was/is evidence does not always remove speculation. Two people can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. A can of gasoline and matches found at the scene of a fire could most definitely be called evidence. Assuming that the matches and the gasoline were involved in the cause of the fire is speculating with that evidence. How about rather then "speculative evidence" I say they can speculate based on the evidence. With, or without, evidence speculating is still speculating. |
Yes, such speculation based upon evidence is called a "hypothesis." If you rigorously test that hypothesis (for example, by checking for the combustion products of gasoline within the soot), you're doing "science." If you find that all your tests are successful, you're justified in removing the "speculative" label from your "theory."| So, Bill, I challenge you to present anything within the theory of evolution that is either "speculative evidence" or is an assumption. Your say-so that such things exist within the science isn't good enough. Prove they exist |
Before we head down that endless tangent I think you can answer your own question here, so are saying that no speculation or assumptions exist in the fish-to-philosopher debate? |
Quit trying to shift the burden of proof, Bill: you made the claim that there exist assumptions within the theory of evolution. For you to have made that claim, you should already know what those assumptions are. That you continue to refuse to provide any evidence of assumptions within the theory provides evidence on its own that you're just blowing smoke.| And I am sure you that will agree with me that neither is fish-to-philosopher evolution. |
Show me how such evolutionary theory is premised upon speculation, and not upon evidence and experimentation, and I'll agree with you. That's your claim. Provide evidence to show that it's true.| 1. Do you acknowledge that fish-to-philosopher evolution has any speculation and/or assumption(s) in the hypothisis? If no then there is no real reason for us to proceed. |
Why would I be asking you to provide evidence for your claim that there is speculation and/or assumption within the theory if I agreed that there are? And of course there's reason to proceed: this is your chance to teach me something that I didn't know.| 2. If the theory has just one assumption then it is assuming, period. |
Show one. Just one.| 3. dude and HH believe fish-to-philosopher evolution to be true, even though there is a degree of assumption and speculation involved. |
That's what you need to demonstrate. I can't grant this as a premise until you do.| That equates to no "real knowledge." They believe it to be true but they don't know that it is true. |
So "real knowledge" is only that for which there are no assumptions or speculations? So you would agree that you only have "real knowledge" that your mailbox exists when you're touching it? And that as soon as you stop touching it, your knowledge of it becomes speculative (optical illusions, after all, are commonplace)?| I never addressed either, Bill. What do they have to do with what I was talking about? |
Because I was addressing both when you chimed in. |
So only what you say is of interest to you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 11:50:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Assuming that matches and gasoline found at the sight of a fire are involved in the setting of the actual fire itself, with no other evidence offered, would be speculative. Maybe I didn't choose my words clear enough for you, Dave. My point was/is evidence does not always remove speculation. Two people can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. A can of gasoline and matches found at the scene of a fire could most definitely be called evidence. Assuming that the matches and the gasoline were involved in the cause of the fire is speculating with that evidence. How about rather then "speculative evidence" I say they can speculate based on the evidence. With, or without, evidence speculating is still speculating. |
In science, "speculat[ing] based on the evidence" is called forming a hypothesis. After repeated tests and review, that hypothesis might become a theory. So, in a very tangential sense, you could say that science is speculative. If you were to leave it at that, however, you'd be wrong.| Before we head down that endless tangent I think you can answer your own question here, so are saying that no speculation or assumptions exist in the fish-to-philosopher debate? |
Ok, Bill Scott, I'll bite: some of the underlying assumptions in the Theory of Evolution (and in all science) are:
- There exists a measurable, natural reality outside of my own imagination.
- I exist, and can measure this reality.
- There exist consistent and repeatable patterns that can be tested by taking these measurements.
There are a few others, most of which deal more with philosophy than science, but hey. I guess you're right. There are assumptions in science; however, they are pretty fundamental and can apply to existence in general, eh?.
.
.
1. Do you acknowledge that fish-to-philosopher evolution has any speculation and/or assumption(s) in the hypothisis? If no then there is no real reason for us to proceed. |
Are you looking for something more than what I have just written above?| 2. If the theory has just one assumption then it is assuming, period. |
Ok. What's your point?| 3. dude and HH believe fish-to-philosopher evolution to be true, even though there is a degree of assumption and speculation involved. That equates to no "real knowledge." They believe it to be true but they don't know that it is true. |
Whoa! Are trying to say that no knowledge is real? I encourage you to read Descartes. You might like his philosophy.
Seriously, do you honestly think moving from "a degree of assumption and speculation" to "no 'real knowledge'" is logically valid?
If you want to get philosophical, you could say that nobody knows that anything is true, but where will that get us? Why don't we instead say that we can draw theories from facts and experiments?
That is as close to truth as we cat get. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 12:49:22 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
Originally posted by Bill scott
Assuming that matches and gasoline found at the sight of a fire are involved in the setting of the actual fire itself, with no other evidence offered, would be speculative. Maybe I didn't choose my words clear enough for you, Dave. My point was/is evidence does not always remove speculation. Two people can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. A can of gasoline and matches found at the scene of a fire could most definitely be called evidence. Assuming that the matches and the gasoline were involved in the cause of the fire is speculating with that evidence. How about rather then "speculative evidence" I say they can speculate based on the evidence. With, or without, evidence speculating is still speculating. |
Yes, such speculation based upon evidence is called a "hypothesis." If you rigorously test that hypothesis (for example, by checking for the combustion products of gasoline within the soot), you're doing "science." If you find that all your tests are successful, you're justified in removing the "speculative" label from your "theory." |
And of coarse one investigator might test to see if the products of the gasoline in the soot came from the can of gas found at the scene while another one might just assume that it did. My point being that there are always situations to point to where speculations are involved. When the fire investigator comes out with his final conclusion we just speculate that he tested in all the right ways and assume he would have tested the can as the source of the gasoline as well as looking at another possible source. Maybe the fire inspector was paid off to deceive the final result by someone who wanted to collect the issuance money. A scientific study can still be based and conclusion come too on speculation and assuming. We might now believe the fire investigator got the theory right, but we still have no real knowledge that he did.
| Show me how such evolutionary theory is premised upon speculation, and not upon evidence and experimentation, and I'll agree with you. That's your claim. Provide evidence to show that it's true. |
Nope... I never said that "TOE is premised upon speculation, and not upon evidence and experimentation." What I have been saying is that even with evidence and experimentation there is still assumption(s) and speculation(s) in TOE fish-to-philosopher, therefore, it's conclusion is speculative and a belief rather then a known.
| Why would I be asking you to provide evidence for your claim that there is speculation and/or assumption within the theory if I agreed that there are? |
Then why are you asking me for evidence to a claim in which you already agree with? As I have already demonstrated "tested" does not remove all speculation and can even add more.
| So "real knowledge" is only that for which there are no assumptions or speculations? So you would agree that you only have "real knowledge" that your mailbox exists when you're touching it? And that as soon as you stop touching it, your knowledge of it becomes speculative (optical illusions, after all, are commonplace)? |
In a nutshell, yes. Although I would state it as: You only have a belief that your mailbox exists as you sit in your house and look out at it, but you know that it exists when you are holding it in your hand or touching it.
But again, to be technical, if you were experiencing illusions then I suppose one could make a case that even touching the mailbox would just be a belief. Maybe your touching a bird house and illusions make you believe your touching the mailbox.
| I never addressed either, Bill. What do they have to do with what I was talking about? |
I don't know, what?
| Because I was addressing both when you chimed in. |
So only what you say is of interest to you? |
Not usually. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 13:16:09 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Boron10 |
| If you want to get philosophical, you could say that nobody knows that anything is true, but where will that get us? Why don't we instead say that we can draw theories from facts and experiments? |
Agreed.
| That is as close to truth as we cat get. |
Which would give you a belief in fish-to-philosopher evolution and not a known. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 13:24:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And of coarse one investigator might test to see if the products of the gasoline in the soot came from the can of gas found at the scene while another one might just assume that it did. My point being that there are always situations to point to where speculations are involved. When the fire investigator comes out with his final conclusion we just speculate that he tested in all the right ways and assume he would have tested the can as the source of the gasoline as well as looking at another possible source. Maybe the fire inspector was paid off to deceive the final result by someone who wanted to collect the issuance money. A scientific study can still be based and conclusion come too on speculation and assuming. We might now believe the fire investigator got the theory right, but we still have no real knowledge that he did.
|
And here is another example that you clearly do not understand science, nor its self correcting nature. A specious conclusion will eventually be revealed as such by other scientist.
Try again Bill even an amateur such as I know this.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 13:35:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
|
| A specious conclusion will eventually be revealed as such by other scientist. |
Yet again, more assumptions and speculations. For a skeptics forum you guys sure do rely on the pair a whole lot for your conclusions. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 13:49:12 [Permalink]
|
Bill-liarforjesus-scott, I'll offer you the same opportunity. Go and start a thread in this folder, pick a specific piece of evidence for evolution and explain how and why it is "speculative".
You and Ceolecanth have nothing but ridiculous hand-waiving until you can make that argument and defend it.
So get to it!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 14:08:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by moakley
A specious conclusion will eventually be revealed as such by other scientist. |
Yet again, more assumptions and speculations. For a skeptics forum you guys sure do rely on the pair a whole lot for your conclusions.
|
Bill do I have to list the evolutionary hoaxes over the past 140 years that have been revealed as hoaxes by other scientist, even though your fundy friends are still parroting them as arguments against the ToE. Will that satisfy you? Or are you so committed to your assumptions and speculations noise that you are closed to reasoned arguments supported by examples\evidence?
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 14:14:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And of coarse one investigator might test to see if the products of the gasoline in the soot came from the can of gas found at the scene while another one might just assume that it did. My point being that there are always situations to point to where speculations are involved. When the fire investigator comes out with his final conclusion we just speculate that he tested in all the right ways and assume he would have tested the can as the source of the gasoline as well as looking at another possible source. Maybe the fire inspector was paid off to deceive the final result by someone who wanted to collect the issuance money. A scientific study can still be based and conclusion come too on speculation and assuming. We might now believe the fire investigator got the theory right, but we still have no real knowledge that he did. |
Well, now the hand's on the other foot, because you have no "real knowledge" that anyone has screwed up the tests supporting modern evolutionary biology, Bill. All you've presented is speculation that someone might have messed up, and you're expecting people to take you seriously when you say that such speculation should be good enough to believe that the theory lacks proper explanatory power.| Nope... I never said that "TOE is premised upon speculation, and not upon evidence and experimentation." What I have been saying is that even with evidence and experimentation there is still assumption(s) and speculation(s) in TOE fish-to-philosopher, therefore, it's conclusion is speculative and a belief rather then a known. |
Really, Bill, look up the word 'empirical' before making more of a fool of yourself.| Why would I be asking you to provide evidence for your claim that there is speculation and/or assumption within the theory if I agreed that there are? |
Then why are you asking me for evidence to a claim in which you already agree with? |
I'm not. I'm asking you to support your claim, which you have steadfastly refused to do.| As I have already demonstrated "tested" does not remove all speculation and can even add more. |
Only if you want to head on down the bunny trail of solipsism.In a nutshell, yes. Although I would state it as: You only have a belief that your mailbox exists as you sit in your house and look out at it, but you know that it exists when you are holding it in your hand or touching it.
But again, to be technical, if you were experiencing illusions then I suppose one could make a case that even touching the mailbox would just be a belief. Maybe your touching a bird house and illusions make you believe your touching the mailbox. |
Ah, you are a solipsist after all! Using no assumptions or speculation, can you prove to yourself that you exist, physically? Of course not.
And so, if one cannot have "real knowledge" of anything - even one's own existence - then I should doubt the conclusions of the theory of evolution equally as much as I should doubt the existence of the desk I'm sitting at right now (after all, I've got just as much evidence for either, based upon the same assumptions of reality).
And guess what: I do. Given those constraints for the term "real knowledge" (which amount to "Truth with a capital T"), I can't even be certain that anything about me (physical or otherwise) Truly (note capital) existed five seconds ago. Pragmatically, though, if I doubt the existence of the desk too much, I will harm myself when I try to walk through it, and will justifiably be called "insane" by family and friends (outside of philosophy class or a hash bar) when I explain to them that I have no "real knowledge" of the desk.
Within the framework of the philosophy of science, "real knowledge" is precisely what the act of doing science provides. And so, Bill, you've simply used the same term in two different contexts to attempt to sew confusion and doubt. This isn't logical argumentation, but is instead rhetorical trickery.
By the way, Bill, I'm curious as to how can one be a solipsist and a Christian. Can you explain? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 14:24:15 [Permalink]
|
| If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands. |
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 14:34:20 [Permalink]
|
| Wow. Good arguments Dave and Dude. Now I wonder whether Bill will ignore them, spin them, or disappear for a few days. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2007 : 14:37:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And of coarse one investigator might test to see if the products of the gasoline in the soot came from the can of gas found at the scene while another one might just assume that it did. My point being that there are always situations to point to where speculations are involved. When the fire investigator comes out with his final conclusion we just speculate that he tested in all the right ways and assume he would have tested the can as the source of the gasoline as well as looking at another possible source. Maybe the fire inspector was paid off to deceive the final result by someone who wanted to collect the issuance money. A scientific study can still be based and conclusion come too on speculation and assuming. We might now believe the fire investigator got the theory right, but we still have no real knowledge that he did. |
That's why we have Peer Review.
(opps, accidentally hit the post-button)
Bill, what you are doing when you say that Theory of Evolution is speculative, it that you are taking the jury's place in the fire-case above, and decide that the fire investigator never did his job as he should have done it. And you assume he never asked his fellow coworkers to double-check his work. You are judging him as a sloppy piece of shit because you don't like the religion he follows.
Scientist love the challenge of shooting down each others work. That's the way science weeds out poorly done investigation. If the Teory of Biological Evolution was bad, then some scientist would have made his name by shooting it down. It would earn him a Nobel Price. |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/29/2007 14:45:06 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
