Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Perhaps Sagan is more to your taste?

Perhaps, I've only really seen him on TV and read his Contact. The Demon-Haunted World looks interesting. I'll push it down on my stack o' books.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
The (EXTREMELY few) 'agnostics' in the ID camp seem to have a political agenda (e.g. Berlinski).

I don't know that I agree with everything Dawkins says, but I agree with most of the specific commentary I've read and heard. Also, I was very fond of his book, "The Blind Watchmaker." Most of his specific comments are reasonable (to me), but a lot of what his opponents have said about his views don't seem to resemble his actual views as I've heard him express them.

There is, of course, the title of his book, "The God Delusion," (which I have not yet read and therefore neither endorse nor reject), but what else would one expect an atheist to write?

Issue: There is a resurgence of religious people who want to present to the public that science supports their specific religion. There are some very specific areas in which science might have some to say. For example, 'belief' occurs in human brains so it's conceivable that neurologists might be be able to study it. But "god" (as most people understand it) is a supernatural phenomenon and is therefore outside the scope of science. There are various ID advocates who are very coy on this and will say, "We don't say 'the designer is God' ... it MIGHT BE an alien. There are nuances to this, but the vast majority of these guys are very clear (J. Wells, et. al.) that the designer is god. In the Dover case, one thing that irritated the (conservative) judge was the fact that the ID crowd had replaced the "creator" references in their book with "designer" and then in various other ways tried to cover their tracks.

We allow religionists to influence scientific discussion without challenging them on it - and as a result (partly of this and other things) we have a generation of people are absolutely convinced they "understand science" and yet who do not. On youtube, I regularly come across apologists, for example, and even people with modest backgrounds in science who are utterly confused on the basics, but think they're just fine.

A specific example is the almost universal misunderstanding of what a scientific law is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTaiP04UlxE

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
M
addict
Offline
addict
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
 Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
A specific example is the almost universal misunderstanding of what a scientific law is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTaiP04UlxE

I read that as "this link was an example of such a misunderstanding". After a minute or two, I realized that was you in the video (you look different without the hat). I'm guessing you don't disagree with what you've said.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
"I'm guessing you don't disagree with what you've said."
Yes. It's me in the video. While, in fact, I often do disagree with myself and am sometimes ridiculed by my daughters, friends, and colleagues for arguing with myself in the hallways, kitchen, toilet, parking lot, etc., in this particular instance I can only express agreement with myself. Usually I'm quite congenial with myself, but sometimes the discussion gets heated, words are exchanged in anger, and I don't speak to myself for weeks until we make amends.

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
 Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
I often do disagree with myself ...


 Originally Posted By: Walt Whitman
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
"There is a resurgence of religious people who want to present to the public that science supports their specific religion."

That's true (of Buddhism, Hinduism and various cults as well as Christianity), but that's not what Intelligent Design is. It is a very broad movement (if it can even be called a Movement). It is not necessarily even Theist per se, as you point out, though of course in practical terms most of its proponents will be Theists. But it says nothing of the nature of the Intelligence behind the Design, and is not intrinisically religious but a valid scientific line of enquiry.

"We allow religionists to influence scientific discussion without challenging them on it"

Seems to me that "Science-ists" (as opposed to Scientists) think that the reverse is okay - it's fine for "Science" to influence religion, but not the other way round.

It also assumes that materialism is the only valid philosophical basis for science, which is not a rational assumption and in fact ignores the history of science in the real world, and the place that Theism has played in it, from Christian, Jewish and Muslim scientists over the past thousand years or so.

As for ID, it is argued for by its proponents on at least as rational and scientific a basis as those who argue for non-Intelligent Design (or is that non-Intelligent non-Design?). The arguments from "Irreducible Complexity" for example, are logically powerful and not ones that can be summarily dismissed and pooh-poohed just by taking an a priori materialist stance. They are not a priori but a posteriori arguments based on deductions from observation of physical reality and must be answered as such with logical counter argument and evidence. So far I see little of that in the response of the Dawkins brigade, but simply a smug, demeaning "oh this is not real science" and "we know better than you," attitude. They are the Spanish Inquisition of the Scientific World, not interested in Truth but mere Conformity.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
i've sort of stayed away from this since Intelligent design became the topic.

IN US--a court case ruled that intelligent design is not science (the standard that Intellegent desing proponents hold for hold for "sciencetific theory" would allow astrology, (yes, astrology) to be called a science. (so what sign are you?--don't you believe (and that is KEY WORD Intelligent Design is based on UNPROVEN BELIEF--(ie religion) not on PROVE ABLE FACTS )in the stars?

Intelligent design is psuedo science, it is religion mascarading as science. it was developed to get around the law (and it failed) that prohibits the teaching of religion or religious beliefs in US schools.

you can check out the PBS web side, (i think it was a 2 part NOVA broadcast but it might have been FrontLine.. (it was broadcast earlier this year.)

there are mountains of evidence that the term intellegent design was chose to mis represent faith as fact.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
"...that's not what Intelligent Design is"
That is exactly what ID as a political movement is.

"it's fine for "Science" to influence religion, but not the other way round."
That may be true of some few scientists, but a very few. I think most people with a scientific outlook think that, yes, religions could benefit from re-examining their assertions through evidence, but the main squawking is because religion is losing its primacy. People used to just accept what religions said - they would pick one and then try to justify it. Nowadays, people are challenging this, "Why should I? Why *that* particular belief?" Many religions do not operate well in that sort of environment.

"It also assumes that materialism is the only valid philosophical basis for science, which is not a rational assumption and in fact ignores the history of science in the real world,"
Materialism can mean several things and it gets a bad rap. The materialism on which science rests is this: that if it's not material, it's not something that can be studied by science. It took us a very long time to figure this out. It doesn't assume there is no supernature. It doesn't assert there is no supernature. But if there is a supernature, we cannot discern using science - and if it interferes too much, science will not work. Yes, many religious people have contributed to science, but their religion did not. This is no more relevant than the fact that chemistry used to be merged with alchemy, or astronomy with astrology. It took a lot of time and missteps to figure out what didn't work - and just as importantly WHY they didn't work.

"As for ID, it is argued for by its proponents on at least as rational and scientific a basis ..."
While they have convinced a gullible and uninformed public, they have not convinced many actual scientists of this - and almost none of the top tier scientists (nobel winners, national academy winners, etc.) - and for good reason.

Irreducible Complexity (IC) is a poster child for poor science. And there is a very good reason it is not good science - it cannot be disproved. It has been refuted in the case of bacterial flagella and a few other things. Behe and his followers deny this, but it's true. The refutation is devastating as the judge at Dover realized. Behe does not recognize this refutation. Such a refutation would in his own words falsify IC. Apparently he doesn't understand falsification. "Behe" (modified 6/25) admitted under oath that he wasn't even familiar with most of the current papers on the subject, because they couldn't possibly refute IC. He doesn't know and he doesn't care about the evidence.

IDers and other creationists often like to compare themselves to Galileo. This is highly ironic, because none of Galileo's contemporaries doubted his genius. They disagreed with his conclusions, but no one doubted that he understood what he was talking about. The same cannot be said for the vast majority of creationists, to include IDers.

This is interesting. There are a number of very good word posts that could come out of this, because much of the turmoil is raised by a complete misconstrual of what science is and how it works and WHY IT WORKS, as well as what they theory of evolution is and what the evidence for it is. The case against "Darwinistic EVILutionism" is based largely on barbershop gossip.

"They accepted the results of science; they rejected it's methods." -- epitaph suggested by Carl Sagan for planet Earth.

"The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the continents and the ocean was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge."
-- The Discoverers, by Daniel Boorstin, Former Librarian of Congress


Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 06/25/08 10:21 AM.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
This is exactly the kind of uninformed name-calling rant that proves my point. I'm not saying anything more about it.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
Next topic of discussion: the usurpation of ontology by the sciences and the death of philosophy.

Onward to page 300. \:\)

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,283
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 444 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,510
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5