[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society - Page 13

Baron Munchausen · #**121** March 16th, 2003, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Going back to the religious aspect: religions (primarily in reference to the fundamentals of the religion, mostly as evidenced by the religious scriptures of that religion) do not change like science does to include new evidence. They stay the same, and declare the new evidence to be wrong. Science is not equatable to religion.

Which is why I assert that evolution is not science. It does NOT change, it asserts that any contrary evidence is wrong.

Suicide Junkie · #**122** March 16th, 2003, 01:42 AM

Quote:

I am asserting uncertainty, inconclusiveness, not a rival theory.

So what we have is a choice between:
a) Who knows, it could be anything.
vs
b) So far "evolution" is the closest.

One is useful, the others are not.
(A) Is giving up. It does not help.
Instead, you go with (B) until something better comes along.

All we need is someone with a better idea.
Where better means:
a) matches the already-observed phenomena.
b) can be used to predict future observations more accurately.
c) is simpler. (Nice but not nessesary, of course)

For evolution in particular:
I have no doubt that it will change. The problem is you can't expect instantaneous results. Also, if you want to get rid of evolution, you need to BUILD a better, competing theory instead of just trying to demolish the old theory.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Baron Munchausen · #**123** March 16th, 2003, 02:07 AM

I didn't see any indication that the debate was about 'usefullness'. I saw Fyron asserting that there was some huge difference between 'science' and 'religion'. What I wanted to point out is that a close examination of some fields of 'science' shows them to be religious in character. So this big distinction is not so clear as he would like to think it is. And anyway, I'd sure like to know what 'use' an untestable theory is.

Sure we've got a lot of practical benefits from various biological sciences, some of which might have been developed while trying to investigate evolution, but what have we gotten from evolution specifically?

P.S. Who says you have to have a new theory before you can dispose of the old one? Why can't I disprove the phlogiston theory of heat until I develop the radiation theory? It's easy to do. Grind a couple of wheels together and see that they never stop heating each other up by friction.

[ March 16, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Fyron · #**124** March 16th, 2003, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Which is why I assert that evolution is not science. It does NOT change, it asserts that any contrary evidence is wrong.

No, it does not assert that any and all contrary evidence is wrong. The contrary evidence is relatively recent, and the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going.

Baron Munchausen · #**125** March 16th, 2003, 02:31 AM

In this case, Fyron, it is you who are wrong. Publicly doubting Darwinian evolution is fatal to academic and scientific careers. The quickest references would be Online, but you could find many more if you were interested. Try visiting http://www.alternativescience.com/sc...censorship.htm for some examples. There are many less formal situations with the same intent as some of the examples given here. For example there was a recent thread on Usenet about some biology professor who would not allow students to graduate unless they asserted that they 'believed in' evolution. I suppose I could go look that up. Or you could if you were interested in contrary evidence to your own beliefs.

[ March 16, 2003, 02:08: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Suicide Junkie · #**126** March 16th, 2003, 03:31 AM

Quote:

For example there was a recent thread on Usenet about some biology professor would would not allow students to graduate unless they asserted that they 'believed in' evolution.

That prof could use a smack upside the head

Requiring a real understanding of it is certainly not a problem. Without learning the strengths and weaknesses of the current theories, what chance do you have of improving things?

I'm not a chemistry major, but I'm sure there must have been some good uses for the phlogiston theory. Chemical reactions are what it is good for, rather than mechanical things. ISTM that "Phlogiston concentration" would relate to the degree of oxidation.
It was not correct, but it was not totally wrong in a practical sense.

Andr�s · #**127** March 16th, 2003, 04:29 AM

Can you quote or post me a link to this new evidence that supposedly disproves evolution.

Most of what I've found ar the same scientifically wrong points raised once and again by creationists.
And now some who claim not to be creationists, although they repeat their points, and yet fail to provide any reasonable explanation.

I any case I fail to see a motive for "evil evolutionists" to censor the truth and contiue their lie, as some claim.

Fyron · #**128** March 16th, 2003, 04:30 AM

BM:
A few sad stories are not indicative of the whole of the scientific community. Scientists are people, after all. People make mistakes.

The theory of evolution is not a valid sample of science as a whole from which to base such sweeping statements about science being a kind of religion.

Evolution is not wrong. The evidence used in the past may well have been flawed, but so what. The currently accepted theory of evolution might not be 100% accurate, but neither were Newton's laws of gravitation. They only represented a special case of relativity. Once we learn more about genetics and such, we will be able to formulate a more precise theory of evolution. All evidence points to some sort of evolutionary processes. We of course do not fully understand them at the present time, but this is not a grounds to fully deny evolution. It is also not grounds to call science a type of religion. Religious beliefs are based off of: "We say it is this way, so it is this way". Scientific beliefs are based off of: "We see this evidence. We have a theory that the evidence seems to corroborate, amongst other theories. But, this one fits the evidence better than the others, so this theory looks like the best to use. Once we get more evidence, we can re-evaluate our theory, to see if we were right or not."

Since scientists are people, they are allowed to make mistakes. They try to minimize their errors, but they can not catch them all.

Gryphin · #**129** March 16th, 2003, 04:36 AM

I don't have nearly enough education or background to contribute to any of the arguments proffered here. One of the most frequently used words in this thread is
"Theory"
I thought I might offer an idea of what "Theory" means. In short it means that the concept has not been proven.
http://thinkertools.soe.berkeley.edu.../c_theory.html
Maybe everyone knows this but it seems a lot of the theorys here are being presented as fact. Then again this could be my lack of understanding and could be atributed to "he's off his meds again"

Fyron · #**130** March 16th, 2003, 04:42 AM

Gryphin, when used in Scientific terms, a Hypothesis is an unproven assumption about how something will work. A Theory is a hypothesis that is backed by proper evidence and experimentation, so it can be taken to be true. A Law is something that has been proven to be correct in all cases, and can be taken as a universal fact (until we find more situations in which the law could apply, and we have ot test it out to see if it is true, or if it is a special case of the bigger picture, like Newton's laws of gravitation and force).

This is another example of how dictionary definitions are not good to rely on for complex terms.