Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you're welcome. while you're at it you can send me a chuckle or two in return and explain the Big Bang theory and Evolution ...lol
I will let the scientist Rifleman help you with your school work, after all he has the degree's in it. But we all know it will be hard for you to get past your magic and rib/dirt myths.
Apparently this is impossible. Not enough logic in the room!
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneJackson
you're welcome. while you're at it you can send me a chuckle or two in return and explain the Big Bang theory and Evolution ...lol
The OP here is for you to tell us which component of Evolution is unworkable. Like, for instance, chance mutations in DNA, or tDNA or MDNA or tRNA's existence, or that positive mutations can and do happen, and are duly recorded. Or that you believe that we'd have to see a cat give birth to a dog one evening to "prove" evolution to you.
Get it?
BTW, again (when will you guys give it up?) The Big Bang (origins of the universe) has absolutely, positively NOTHING TO DO with Evolution of different species once life has arisen. But I suppose you'll never let up on that obvious logical infraction because you're told to do it by the Hive Masters. Obedience uber alles!
Try understanding things before you make pronouncements on them, OK. It's called "intellectual honesty".
In order for something to be knowledge (in the old school academic philosophical sense) it needs to be a belief that is true and justified.
All three of those criteria must be satisfied.
Theories of knowledge are complicated enough without bringing religion into it.
I've studied a lot on this topic and have come to the conclusion that the justification part is very important. And in my theory, responsibility to knowledge is important to separate belief from knowledge.
So I believe that most things that we think we know (this is pretty out there) are just beliefs. Think of it as a solipsistic viewpoint, whereby I only "know" what I can sense "responsibly." Everything else is just a belief.
There can be "high level" and "low level" beliefs based on the probability of my responsibility to "show that I know."
Knowledge requires that I show that I know something (just as virture requires that I show courage).
I can say I'm courageous and will save someone, but I am not until I actually save someone from a burning building.
So in theory I could have a very strong belief that "X" and it's almost knowledge or I can have a weak belief of "Y" that's not even close. The burden of proof lies in (once again) my ability to show how I know.
And that proof is linked to the physical world.
Insofar as religion is concerned unless there is physical evidence that can prove it as "knowledge" it isn't. It can be at anyone time, true belief. OR even justified belief, but it will never satisfy all three criteria at one time and cannot be considered Knowledge.
And yet, in my theory, there's nothing wrong with that. The fervor of one's belief can be a true and powerful thing, I just wouldn't call it Knowledge.
Well stated. Note that I did say "Knowledge is based on...", not "Knowledge is..."
But... over time we come to accept as truth that which is demonstrated to our satisfaction. Of course, some really don't want to hear alternate hypotheses that question the status-quo, and they'd enforce that in our education system if we let them.
Scientists, on the other hand, are completely open to revising their conclusions, though being only human, they may, individually, struggle with changes to their life's work. But in the end, they will give in to reproduceable and logical study results that show they need to re-consider or expand their ideas.
Absent that acceptance, we'd still believe in cells filled with an undefined homogeneous protoplasm, and we'd deny DNA, RNA. And mitochondria as ancient interlopers into our cells. We'd say that man cannot go faster than 32 mph, and that the speed of sound cannot be exceeded lest the plane fall apart. We'd also say that the Earth is flat, and that the entire universe rotates around a stationary Earth. And that the sun's made of crystals hung in space by angels.
But then, along comes a credible, understandable, rational and logical toolset called "science", evolved and perfected over time to eliminate, as much as possible, biases and fraud.
Result? A lot of really good information has arisen. Yes, there has been fraud, but guess who has uncovered it eventually? The Church? Nope. Scientists? Yep. And, as a logical result, not too many try to get away with stuff any more. Unlike the Christian apologists, who continue to purposefully mis-inform.
We're self-policing, and therefore credible in the main. And that, my friend, leads to accumulated knowledge you can believe in. Even if it's uncomfortable.
Science is simply a toolset that allows pretty good answers to be obtained without bias, and through it's relentless application by literally tens of millions of honest scientists over hundreds of years, a lot of credible information has arisen. Despite the Church's desperate attempts to violently suppress it all.
I'm glad we agree that science is a tool. But I don't see any reason at all to claim that "science" and "religion" are in conflict. None. This is basically a myth cooked up some time in the 1800s (by both Christians and doubters!). It's been promulgated because it serves the purpose of many metaphysical naturalists (those who believe that only the natural world exists, and nothing more). Again, the only tension is between competing worldviews. Full stop.
Rifleman, your claims are far too general for you to have any hope of backing them up. As a scientist, don't you think you should qualify your conclusions here?
How can "science", a method, conflict with religion, which can involve any number of diverse beliefs and commitments to live in certain ways? At best, only some findings of science (the method) can stand in conflict with some religious beliefs. But this doesn't say anything about the relationship between "science" and "religion"--it only says something about the relationship between some facts about the physical world and some religious beliefs--assuming that the findings of science are always trustworthy. Heck, findings of science often conflict with other findings of science--so we could say "science" conflicts with itself. Why is this so different from the way that scientific findings conflict with some religious beliefs?
One could question whether scientific "discoveries" are always trustworthy--and why shouldn't someone be allows to do this? The more that doubt in scientific discovery is squelched--by saying that such people are backwards, or cannot possibly understand, or that they aren't in a position to criticize because they lack the relevant education, aptitude, experience--the more "belief" in science begins to look like a religious commitment. We trade one tyranny for another.
I have no problem whatsoever with science as a method. My problems have to do with the devotion the modern world gives to science, as well as the claim that science is or should be "atheistic." Science should, in my opinion, remain an open dialogue, open to many competing views. If it doesn't, then science betrays itself.
Some questions:
What are the proper parameters of scientific inquiry?
Is there any topic we cannot investigate through science?
Are these questions I am now asking questions of science or questions about science (and therefore, questions of philosophy)?
Who gets to define what counts as "science" and what doesn't?
Try understanding things before you make pronouncements on them, OK. It's called "intellectual honesty".
What a great idea. Why not follow your own advise and study philosophy of religion? You might be surprised that there are some smart people who also hold religious beliefs.
Insofar as religion is concerned unless there is physical evidence that can prove it as "knowledge" it isn't. It can be at anyone time, true belief. OR even justified belief, but it will never satisfy all three criteria at one time and cannot be considered Knowledge.
The same thing would then have to be said for atheistic beliefs. Right?
The same thing would then have to be said for atheistic beliefs. Right?
Yeah. Hell, in my theory even science until proven isn't knowledge. It is merely a claim that MUST be backed up by evidence. EVEN after it has been proven. (this is why my theory is out there). The individual agent must be able to demonstrate the existence of knowledge. Here is the kicker: Most of what we think we know are just strong beliefs waiting to be proved.
Plus there's knowing HOW and knowing THAT. I don't know exactly how radio waves work but I beleive them to and it is true that they exist AND I can justifiy it through experimentation. BUT do I Know how they work at this moment? No.
Knowledge then is transferable into a strong belief. It is fluid.
When an agent justifies true belief and is converted into knowledge, it is NOT transferable. Work must be done to "Re-knowledge" a belief.
Sorry for jacking this part; I get excited over this stuff.
On point. Yes Atheism although in some cases is harder to "prove" if there is nothing to prove in the first place. Atheism is much more societal and reactionary (for lack of a better term) than an actual belief and as such would have different ramifications in the realm of knowledge. I just don't know what those are at the moment.
The main questions for me are: why don't we accept Magic as a form of knowledge? Why wouldn't we accept religion as knowledge. And then why is science accepted?
In short, they are all able to be questioned, but one just has a bit more evidence.
What a great idea. Why not follow your own advise and study philosophy of religion? You might be surprised that there are some smart people who also hold religious beliefs.
The majority of scientists tend to be "concrete" thinkers mired in the physical world created by the molecular limitations of our sensory system. Philosophy and abstractions stress their neurons beyond their capacity for thought and render them incapable of contemplating such pure intellectual content. If they cannot attach the concepts to some physical or material correlates . . . they get lost and cannot follow the train of thought. It is a disability . . . of sorts. Be kind.
I'm glad we agree that science is a tool. But I don't see any reason at all to claim that "science" and "religion" are in conflict. None. This is basically a myth cooked up some time in the 1800s (by both Christians and doubters!). It's been promulgated because it serves the purpose of many metaphysical naturalists (those who believe that only the natural world exists, and nothing more). Again, the only tension is between competing worldviews. Full stop.
Rifleman, your claims are far too general for you to have any hope of backing them up. As a scientist, don't you think you should qualify your conclusions here?
How can "science", a method, conflict with religion, which can involve any number of diverse beliefs and commitments to live in certain ways? At best, only some findings of science (the method) can stand in conflict with some religious beliefs. But this doesn't say anything about the relationship between "science" and "religion"--it only says something about the relationship between some facts about the physical world and some religious beliefs--assuming that the findings of science are always trustworthy. Heck, findings of science often conflict with other findings of science--so we could say "science" conflicts with itself. Why is this so different from the way that scientific findings conflict with some religious beliefs?
One could question whether scientific "discoveries" are always trustworthy--and why shouldn't someone be allows to do this? The more that doubt in scientific discovery is squelched--by saying that such people are backwards, or cannot possibly understand, or that they aren't in a position to criticize because they lack the relevant education, aptitude, experience--the more "belief" in science begins to look like a religious commitment. We trade one tyranny for another.
I have no problem whatsoever with science as a method. My problems have to do with the devotion the modern world gives to science, as well as the claim that science is or should be "atheistic." Science should, in my opinion, remain an open dialogue, open to many competing views. If it doesn't, then science betrays itself.
Some questions:
What are the proper parameters of scientific inquiry?
Is there any topic we cannot investigate through science?
Are these questions I am now asking questions of science or questions about science (and therefore, questions of philosophy)?
Who gets to define what counts as "science" and what doesn't?
Science and religion are polar opposites.
Science relies on the Scientific Method, and all that term entails, to examine a subject and return a fact about that subject. Science seeks to explain that subject fully, where it originated, what it's purpose in the natural paradigm lies and how it interacts with that paradigm, it's exact properties are, etc.
Religion relies purely on believe and not at all on facts. Personal ancedotal evidence is not proof and can be explained away as being quite mundane, and internal, in nature. Religion contains only a few of the segments of the Scientific Method, basically ask the question and skip right to conclusion. "Goddunit".
Science and religion being oil and water is natural. I would suggest that your opinion shown above is the attempt at apologetics, an attempt to lend some scientific credibility to religion.
One could question whether scientific "discoveries" are always trustworthy--and why shouldn't someone be allows to do this? The more that doubt in scientific discovery is squelched--by saying that such people are backwards, or cannot possibly understand, or that they aren't in a position to criticize because they lack the relevant education, aptitude, experience--the more "belief" in science begins to look like a religious commitment. We trade one tyranny for another.
Without a doubt people should question whether scientific discoveries are trustworthy. In fact, one of the avenues a solid and well-grounded scientific approach should take is to persistently ask questions and to never be satisfied in totality with the answers we find. This, of course, does not mean that science should lend credibility to any emerging hypothesis under the premise that it's merely "questioning" what we already scientifically know.
One of the things I know rifleman continually pursues his fight against is the idea of Creationism, commonly known as Intelligent Design. We should be well aware through the numerous court trials, the lack of cohesive scientific evidence, empirical review, and their subtle underhanded methods that the leaders of this movement are in it for something far different than the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
A science such as evolution that simply has so much evidence in favor of it - I dare say on a magnitude equal to or greater than a number of other scientific bodies - should not be discredited or have attempts made at discrediting it without asking the same of those who object with what was initially put into it. If that last sentence doesn't make sense, let me clarify:
We have multiple branches of science that all converge in support of the theory of evolution. The geological evidence backs it up where it needs to, the biological evidence backs it up where it needs to, the paleontology backs it up where it needs to, and so on and so forth. Each science that backs up the theory of evolution has had tremendous amounts of effort put into it with rigorous scientific examination and peer review. I should note also that many of these findings, examinations, inquiries and discoveries were made independently of trying to support the theory of evolution.
When people try to argue against evolution (I'm just using this as an example but the spectrum can be broadened to any scientific achievement people argue against) they typically do so in a manner that reminds us of science but does not really encapsulate any true methodology of good, scientific groundwork. For example, the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute often hire scientists to write for them so they can attach 'PhD' or something similar to the article. This makes it appear scientific, professional, perhaps even sufficient as a counter-argument to most people. That is the crux of what I feel is meant when people are labeled backwards, unable to understand, etc... when deciphering these pseudosciences. Some of the articles that get pumped out of places like the Discovery Institute seem very professional, scientific, and well thought out - on the surface. It would take someone with a good body of knowledge of the actual science these places are trying to refute to find the hidden "shape shifting" in the text to realize that what they are refuting are nothing more than strawmen. In many cases, your ordinary and average person can't decipher that for what I suspect are a variety of reasons - but I will only name two:
1. They are already looking for evidence to support their opinion of "Intelligent Design/Creationism" and will unconsciously (but ignorantly) agree with what they are reading without examining it further.
2. They don't have the scientific knowledge of the "base science" to refute it in the first place so they agree with what is comfortable to them. Refer to Number One.
These groups have developed a large number of followings from people who simply just don't understand the actual science, don't want to understand the actual science, or are scared of the actual science. We've seen this not just with evolution but with climate change deniers, miasmists in the 19th century, the holistic and herbal medicine movements, the anti-vaccine crowd, and many others.
If we are to refute (or replace) scientific findings with other scientifically oriented ideas using the same rigorous process than I have no complaints. However, just because someone builds a fancy website, pumps out a few books, and adds a few PhD's to the site doesn't make them any more scientific than putting a spoiler, chrome wheels, and a roll cage in my Honda Fit would make it a race car.
One of the best examples of how currently known science can or should be refuted is how Einstein's Theory of Relativity was proven by the Eddington Expeditions. If you want to talk about a rigorous, trying process that overthrew several hundred years of previously concluded scientific thought than read about that - not how these crackpot pseudoscience facilities are being "condemned" because they are throwing out "valid and justified" scientific "theories."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently this is impossible. Not enough logic in the room!
Why not follow your own advise and study philosophy of religion? You might be surprised that there are some smart people who also hold religious beliefs.
