Critical thinking was barely even mentioned to me educationally until uni.Sleksa wrote:School is not a limit nor is it the absolute truth. It is meant to provide you with tools so that you could do your own thinking.
intelligent design bashing is getting old...
Moderator: Moderators
Re: intelligent design bashing is getting old...
Re: intelligent design bashing is getting old...
Peet wrote:Critical thinking was barely even mentioned to me educationally until uni.Sleksa wrote:School is not a limit nor is it the absolute truth. It is meant to provide you with tools so that you could do your own thinking.
move to socialist finland to make your life better \o/
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Re: intelligent design bashing is getting old...
I'm not digging through books I read 6 years ago for sources to discuss. I don't really care that much. I'm not a creationist. I just think people who believe they know everything about everything are retarded. Especially something as complicated as genetic physics.LordMatt wrote:You would have to give some examples for this statement to be meaningful.SwiftSpear wrote:As I stated before. Evolution in an broad sense is not "theory", it's been proven over and over again. The part where "theory" comes in is when we attempt to describe in detail the mechanisms of evolution. Surely natural selection exists as a mechanism... but there is evidence to support the existence of other less palpable selective systems that we don't fully understand at this point in time, and there is evidence to indicate that within certain systems natural selection hasn't been taking place and evolution has still occurred, sometimes in very unexpected ways.
Re: intelligent design bashing is getting old...
Didn't say you were one, but you are doing the same thing as they do. Arguing based on vague misunderstandings, which could be your own, rather than the scientists'. Thus I suggest you give some examples so that they could either be explained to you, or your point could be more substantially supported.SwiftSpear wrote:I'm not digging through books I read 6 years ago for sources to discuss. I don't really care that much. I'm not a creationist. I just think people who believe they know everything about everything are retarded. Especially something as complicated as genetic physics.
I got bored with this thread yesterday because the average post length got too long and I'm sort of on vacation.jcnossen wrote:The creationists usually get the last word because they just annoy the shit out of the reasonable thinking people.
Re: intelligent design bashing is getting old...
Yeah, I stepped back for similar reasons.LordMatt wrote:Didn't say you were one, but you are doing the same thing as they do. Arguing based on vague misunderstandings, which could be your own, rather than the scientists'. Thus I suggest you give some examples so that they could either be explained to you, or your point could be more substantially supported.SwiftSpear wrote:I'm not digging through books I read 6 years ago for sources to discuss. I don't really care that much. I'm not a creationist. I just think people who believe they know everything about everything are retarded. Especially something as complicated as genetic physics.I got bored with this thread yesterday because the average post length got too long and I'm sort of on vacation.jcnossen wrote:The creationists usually get the last word because they just annoy the shit out of the reasonable thinking people.
-
The_Big_Boss
- Posts: 88
- Joined: 17 Jul 2006, 04:00
Re: intelligent design bashing is getting old...
I enjoyed it tho.
You are a scientist, today you will prove that gravity exists. You bought with your private funds 20 apples. You don't have all day to do this experiment.
Since you have no data on gravity, you dont know what to expect, at least statistically. You drop each apple, 10 times, a total of 200 times. Time is up and the apples are wasted. You dont have enough funds to continue the experiment. In light of the experiment, the lack of resources, time, and sanity, you estimate that if you dropped another 20 apples 10 times each, they'd repeat the previous experiment and not fly up; and you would of guessed your findings on a pattern. This is how science operates, since its empirical in nature. Science terms truth as something that is based on an observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions. Tho this is defined as truth, it is truth put and defined with 'assumed truths'. Science cant prove or disprove the idea that something is true if it can be observed and reproduced without using the same system.
You cant prove math without using the math system. You cant prove science without using the science system.
Of course, if someone actually takes my point seriously, and buys a thousand apples and tries to prove gravity true, we call this person a dumb a. , because its not practical. On that sense, sometimes as a society, we define truth or something good as something practical.
Is it ok to be practical? Practical is subjective to a given surroundings. Thats why on the internet, people of like minded ideas crowd together. If you were a furry, it is not practical to advertise yourself on most forums. But on a furry forum, the society makes it practical. Swift spear's beginning posts reflect this dimension of humanity.
I dont try to be practical for the sake of being practical, in fact i believe there are more mysteries to life than what it seems atm, and that is my greatest strength and greatest weakness. In a sense, i hope science could one day bypass all this, and end my suffering. Even Socrates doubted if he really knew anything to be true, other than being ignorant; but Socrates, if he viewed life to be practical, he would of never had such a hard time finding truth. The current view of science doesnt fit with Socrates, because Socrates wasn't practical, in fact he was to his society a dumb a. and he paid for it.
In Texts on Socrates, it says, "he never stopped 'conversing and examining both myself and others'". Thats what i do now, i choose this forum out of all the other forums, because the people here are pretty cool, in my opinion anyway. Even if i disagree with ya, its always a pleasure. (:
Sorry for the long post. Sorry if you dont understand, or think im idiot. Thats fine. My skype is The_Big_Boss_lol. Feel free to drop by and give me a chat if you find this area interesting. Theres much more out there.
I never said I didn't believe in science or math. I have faith in both. Even evolution, for it seems the most practical out of all the solutions given, atm. Thats all it is.
You are a scientist, today you will prove that gravity exists. You bought with your private funds 20 apples. You don't have all day to do this experiment.
Since you have no data on gravity, you dont know what to expect, at least statistically. You drop each apple, 10 times, a total of 200 times. Time is up and the apples are wasted. You dont have enough funds to continue the experiment. In light of the experiment, the lack of resources, time, and sanity, you estimate that if you dropped another 20 apples 10 times each, they'd repeat the previous experiment and not fly up; and you would of guessed your findings on a pattern. This is how science operates, since its empirical in nature. Science terms truth as something that is based on an observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions. Tho this is defined as truth, it is truth put and defined with 'assumed truths'. Science cant prove or disprove the idea that something is true if it can be observed and reproduced without using the same system.
You cant prove math without using the math system. You cant prove science without using the science system.
Of course, if someone actually takes my point seriously, and buys a thousand apples and tries to prove gravity true, we call this person a dumb a. , because its not practical. On that sense, sometimes as a society, we define truth or something good as something practical.
Is it ok to be practical? Practical is subjective to a given surroundings. Thats why on the internet, people of like minded ideas crowd together. If you were a furry, it is not practical to advertise yourself on most forums. But on a furry forum, the society makes it practical. Swift spear's beginning posts reflect this dimension of humanity.
I dont try to be practical for the sake of being practical, in fact i believe there are more mysteries to life than what it seems atm, and that is my greatest strength and greatest weakness. In a sense, i hope science could one day bypass all this, and end my suffering. Even Socrates doubted if he really knew anything to be true, other than being ignorant; but Socrates, if he viewed life to be practical, he would of never had such a hard time finding truth. The current view of science doesnt fit with Socrates, because Socrates wasn't practical, in fact he was to his society a dumb a. and he paid for it.
In Texts on Socrates, it says, "he never stopped 'conversing and examining both myself and others'". Thats what i do now, i choose this forum out of all the other forums, because the people here are pretty cool, in my opinion anyway. Even if i disagree with ya, its always a pleasure. (:
Sorry for the long post. Sorry if you dont understand, or think im idiot. Thats fine. My skype is The_Big_Boss_lol. Feel free to drop by and give me a chat if you find this area interesting. Theres much more out there.
I never said I didn't believe in science or math. I have faith in both. Even evolution, for it seems the most practical out of all the solutions given, atm. Thats all it is.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Re: intelligent design bashing is getting old...
@ The Big Boss: Yes, that is what Science is about. High Propability against very low. And the right for everyone to buy hundreds of Apples and throw them out of the window on Steve Jobs head, to counterproof.
Until i see the Genetic engineered selfreassembling apple, i assume that apples get damaged hitting concrete. Now for the important Questions, can i have a Apple? will it be red(orpink, orgreen)? Is it true what they say about the taste of Applepie ?
Until i see the Genetic engineered selfreassembling apple, i assume that apples get damaged hitting concrete. Now for the important Questions, can i have a Apple? will it be red(orpink, orgreen)? Is it true what they say about the taste of Applepie ?
Re: intelligent design bashing is getting old...
As we only have access to probabilistic, rather than absolute information in any situation, proof is an impractical concept. I define rationality as the process of deciding what is more likely and appropriately deriving actions and belief.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason very many people have an exceedingly poor grasp of probability. This to me explains religion, smoking, the profits of insurance companies and a good deal more.
While science is no doubt a work in progress and probably ever will be, it's a path trodden by many of the finest minds of the past few generations and well supplied with resources. It's doing pretty well in both of its major roles of providing (probability based) information and developing applications based upon that information (see for example any tool or technology).
I'm not sure where you're going with the repeated statement that some dinosaurs had feathers. Science is derived directly from evidence and is thus limited by the available evidence of the time. Contrary to the immutable dark ages medievialism of religion, however, science quickly adapts to incorporate new evidence as it arises.
Fossils showing dinosaurs with feathers were thus, once found, aligned with existing evidence. So far as I'm aware, at least for the thirty years or so that the life sciences have been really progressing, no established fundamental 'law' has been greatly changed by unexpected evidence. The question of whether a subset of a long extinct group had a particular type of integumentary covering is a fine detail which could easily have arisen, or not, from evolutionary mechanisms.
Evolution is one of the most widely evidenced and well established fundamental 'laws' of biology, and it is exceedingly unlikely that new information will arise to challenge it, except in such fine details.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason very many people have an exceedingly poor grasp of probability. This to me explains religion, smoking, the profits of insurance companies and a good deal more.
While science is no doubt a work in progress and probably ever will be, it's a path trodden by many of the finest minds of the past few generations and well supplied with resources. It's doing pretty well in both of its major roles of providing (probability based) information and developing applications based upon that information (see for example any tool or technology).
I'm not sure where you're going with the repeated statement that some dinosaurs had feathers. Science is derived directly from evidence and is thus limited by the available evidence of the time. Contrary to the immutable dark ages medievialism of religion, however, science quickly adapts to incorporate new evidence as it arises.
Fossils showing dinosaurs with feathers were thus, once found, aligned with existing evidence. So far as I'm aware, at least for the thirty years or so that the life sciences have been really progressing, no established fundamental 'law' has been greatly changed by unexpected evidence. The question of whether a subset of a long extinct group had a particular type of integumentary covering is a fine detail which could easily have arisen, or not, from evolutionary mechanisms.
Evolution is one of the most widely evidenced and well established fundamental 'laws' of biology, and it is exceedingly unlikely that new information will arise to challenge it, except in such fine details.