| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2008 02:54:20 PM · #551 |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 02:55:43 PM · #552 |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:08:46 PM · #553 |
From wiki (where else): "According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition, 1989), empiric is derived from the ancient Greek for experience, ÃìðåéñÃá, which is ultimately derived from Ãõ in + ðåἳñá trial, experiment. Therefore, empirical data is information that is derived from the trials and errors of experience."
I have no empirical evidence of an electron, or god, or God. Empirical evidence of them is equally impossible. But I can see the effect of those things in the world around me. I wonder if that's called secondary empirical evidence? |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:11:11 PM · #554 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
From wiki (where else):
I have no empirical evidence of an electron, or god, or God. Empirical evidence of them is equally impossible. But I can see the effect of those things in the world around me. I wonder if that's called secondary empirical evidence? |
So says your phrenologist. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:12:25 PM · #555 |
From your link: "The new study surprisingly found that the comb jelly was the first animal to diverge from the base of the tree, not the less complex sponge, which had previously been given the honor."
Why is it that Science is always revising the Truth as We Know It? |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:13:19 PM · #556 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
From wiki (where else):
I have no empirical evidence of an electron, or god, or God. Empirical evidence of them is equally impossible. But I can see the effect of those things in the world around me. I wonder if that's called secondary empirical evidence? |
So says your phrenologist. |
My phrenologist says 'Ha ha ha! to your phrenologist. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:20:37 PM · #557 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Why is it that Science is always revising the Truth as We Know It? |
Because it recognizes it as being only that, and not "Truth As It Is, Was, And Ever Shall Be." The whole point of science is to keep searching for and refining knowledge. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:26:33 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Why is it that Science is always revising the Truth as We Know It? |
Because it recognizes it as being only that, and not "Truth As It Is, Was, And Ever Shall Be." The whole point of science is to keep searching for and refining knowledge. |
So, it's the Search that's important? |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:32:06 PM · #559 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Why is it that Science is always revising the Truth as We Know It? |
Because it recognizes it as being only that, and not "Truth As It Is, Was, And Ever Shall Be." The whole point of science is to keep searching for and refining knowledge. |
So, it's the Search that's important? |
Well, in this country it's the patent ... |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:48:34 PM · #560 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Why is it that Science is always revising the Truth as We Know It? |
Better question is why doesn't religion revise its tenets and beliefs when presented with overwhelming evidence (that is, measurable, observable, and testable evidence) that those tenets are false or misguided? Believers see the ability of science to correct error, consider alternatives, and admit limits to current understanding as a weakness. It is the inability of religion, and any form of non-rational belief system, to do these things that is the real weakness.
Your attempt to conflate scientific inquiry with religious belief means that you either have a profound misunderstanding of science or are engaging in deliberate sophistry and intellectual deceit.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 16:51:09. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:52:33 PM · #561 |
It's a patent illusion, is what it is! [eta] or, it could just be patent sophistry masquerading as an inquiring mind. Ooo, call me some more names.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 15:54:07. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 03:58:52 PM · #562 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Better question is why doesn't religion revise its tenants and beliefs when presented with overwhelming evidence (that is, measurable, observable, and testable evidence) that those tenants are false or misguided? |
A couple of examples might be helpful for me to clearly understand exactly your meaning. Specifically, I am aware of much archeological testing that has resulted in huge transformations in scriptural thought. One example is the past representation of the Philistines as backward peoples (from the story of Samson), yet modern archeology is protraying them as actually an advanced people over their Israelite counterparts. The Dead Sea Scrolls are another example of illumunation gained from scientific work in translating ancient texts/messages. These add to the understanding. Your sepcific examples would be helpful for me to more clearly understand your point.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2008 04:03:38 PM · #563 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
It's a patent illusion, is what it is! [eta] or, it could just be patent sophistry masquerading as an inquiring mind. Ooo, call me some more names. |
I've not called you names, I'm belittling your argument. There is a difference.
I will also note that you completely ignored the question posed in the first paragraph of my reply. Put another way:
Why would you preference a faith-based belief system that rejects contrary evidence to its core tenets out of hand and is hostile to open inquiry, over a system of knowledge that remains open to inquiry, accepts and incorporates new evidence as it becomes available, and continually looks for methods and models to better test and refine its own understanding of the world?
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 16:51:23. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 04:11:32 PM · #564 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Better question is why doesn't religion revise its tenets and beliefs when presented with overwhelming evidence (that is, measurable, observable, and testable evidence) that those tenets are false or misguided? |
A couple of examples might be helpful for me to clearly understand exactly your meaning. Specifically, I am aware of much archeological testing that has resulted in huge transformations in scriptural thought. One example is the past representation of the Philistines as backward peoples (from the story of Samson), yet modern archeology is protraying them as actually an advanced people over their Israelite counterparts. The Dead Sea Scrolls are another example of illumunation gained from scientific work in translating ancient texts/messages. These add to the understanding. Your sepcific examples would be helpful for me to more clearly understand your point. |
A quick and easy one:
Early Christians firmly believe that the Earth sat at the center of the universe, which rotated around it. There was very clear evidence to the contrary by the middle of the last millenium to refute this worldview, but religion rejected this evidence as heresy and brutally sanctioned any who dared to voice support or advocate further inquiry. It was only after the evidence against the Earth-centered universe became so overwhelmingly known as to make the religious belief laughable that religion abandoned this view.
Another:
Until the germ theory of disease was discovered, religious belief dictated that illness was caused by sin -- a physical manifestation of spiritual corruption. Even now, despite the mountains of evidence as tothe physiological and perfectly material mechanisms involved with bacterial infection, viral infection, cancer, etc. many believers and faiths hold to the idea that physical illness is caused by spiritual sin. Some faiths and believers take this to the extreme length of refusing all medical treatment as being sinful as well.
edited to give Copernicus (and all modern astronomers) the credit they deserve
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 16:50:07. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 04:25:11 PM · #565 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
It's a patent illusion, is what it is! [eta] or, it could just be patent sophistry masquerading as an inquiring mind. Ooo, call me some more names. |
I've not called you names, I'm belittling your argument. There is a difference.
I will also note that you completely ignored the question posed in the first paragraph of my reply. Put another way:
Why would you preference a faith-based belief system that rejects contrary evidence to its core tenants out of hand and is hostile to open inquiry, over a system of knowledge that remains open to inquiry, accepts and incorporates new evidence as it becomes available, and continually looks for methods and models to better test and refine its own understanding of the world? |
IMO both systems of belief are hostile to new information when it threatens the status quo. Both systems of belief will blackball or shun any member of the peer group that attempts to establish a new status quo. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 04:31:21 PM · #566 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Better question is why doesn't religion revise its tenants and beliefs when presented with overwhelming evidence (that is, measurable, observable, and testable evidence) that those tenants are false or misguided? |
A couple of examples might be helpful for me to clearly understand exactly your meaning. Specifically, I am aware of much archeological testing that has resulted in huge transformations in scriptural thought. One example is the past representation of the Philistines as backward peoples (from the story of Samson), yet modern archeology is protraying them as actually an advanced people over their Israelite counterparts. The Dead Sea Scrolls are another example of illumunation gained from scientific work in translating ancient texts/messages. These add to the understanding. Your sepcific examples would be helpful for me to more clearly understand your point. |
A quick and easy one:
Early Christians firmly believe that the Earth sat at the center of the universe, which rotated around it. There was very clear evidence to the contrary by the middle of the last millenium to refute this worldview, but religion rejected this evidence as heresy and brutally sanctioned any who dared to voice support or advocate further inquiry. It was only after the evidence against the Earth-centered universe became so overwhelmingly known as to make the religious belief laughable that religion abandoned this view.
Another:
Until the germ theory of disease was discovered, religious belief dictated that illness was caused by sin -- a physical manifestation of spiritual corruption. Even now, despite the mountains of evidence as tothe physiological and perfectly material mechanisms involved with bacterial infection, viral infection, cancer, etc. many believers and faiths hold to the idea that physical illness is caused by spiritual sin. Some faiths and believers take this to the extreme length of refusing all medical treatment as being sinful as well.
edited to give Copernicus (and all modern astronomers) the credit they deserve |
Didn't the Catholic Church only recently revise it's stance on Copernicus (or maybe it was Gallileo) status as a heretic? |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 04:36:38 PM · #567 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
It's a patent illusion, is what it is! [eta] or, it could just be patent sophistry masquerading as an inquiring mind. Ooo, call me some more names. |
I've not called you names, I'm belittling your argument. There is a difference.
I will also note that you completely ignored the question posed in the first paragraph of my reply. Put another way:
Why would you preference a faith-based belief system that rejects contrary evidence to its core tenets out of hand and is hostile to open inquiry, over a system of knowledge that remains open to inquiry, accepts and incorporates new evidence as it becomes available, and continually looks for methods and models to better test and refine its own understanding of the world? |
IMO both systems of belief are hostile to new information when it threatens the status quo. Both systems of belief will blackball or shun any member of the peer group that attempts to establish a new status quo. |
And I would suggest to you that the history of science and scientific inquiry does not bear that out - there has been continual re-establishments and refinements of the "status quo" within almost all branches of science at some point or another. While there may be resistance from members of the scientific community when new theories arise or new evidence is uncovered that goes against the current modes of thinking (especially if their careers are built upon the old theories or evidence), there are always other members of the scientific community who see such new theories or evidence as opportunities. The way scientific careers are made is by finding a way to successfully challenge the "status quo."
When something comes along that claims to be an overthrow of the established order, but is simply an assemblage of bad science and questionable evidence -- ID, I'm looking at you -- yes, it gets summarily rejected by the community. "New stuff," however is what science and scientists live for. A solid theory or a verifiable body of evidence always wins out in the end.
You mistake "hostility" toward new ideas and information -- a commonplace religious reaction -- to skepticism, the scientific and wholly appropriate stance. Religion reacts by decrying the new information or idea as heresy, science reacts by demanding proof in the form of verifiable, measurable evidence.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 16:50:52. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 04:42:09 PM · #568 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Didn't the Catholic Church only recently revise it's stance on Copernicus (or maybe it was Gallileo) status as a heretic? |
Yes, the Catholic church did not officially concede that they had lost the argument until 1992. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 04:42:19 PM · #569 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
IMO both systems of belief are hostile to new information when it threatens the status quo. Both systems of belief will blackball or shun any member of the peer group that attempts to establish a new status quo. |
And your opinion it remains, because in the case of scientific inquiry, it's a patently false statement. Science is neither a "belief system", nor is it hostile to new information. Science depends on new information in order for it to be considered science. What's so difficult to understand about that?
This silly tit-for-tat that fundamentalist god-believers engage in is pretty puerile. It shows a fairly basic lack of understanding. It would be easy to fob off, if the tide of general scientific ignorance weren't so devastating at the moment. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 04:45:28 PM · #570 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
It's a patent illusion, is what it is! [eta] or, it could just be patent sophistry masquerading as an inquiring mind. Ooo, call me some more names. |
I've not called you names, I'm belittling your argument. There is a difference.
I will also note that you completely ignored the question posed in the first paragraph of my reply. Put another way:
Why would you preference a faith-based belief system that rejects contrary evidence to its core tenants out of hand and is hostile to open inquiry, over a system of knowledge that remains open to inquiry, accepts and incorporates new evidence as it becomes available, and continually looks for methods and models to better test and refine its own understanding of the world? |
IMO both systems of belief are hostile to new information when it threatens the status quo. Both systems of belief will blackball or shun any member of the peer group that attempts to establish a new status quo. |
And I would suggest to you that the history of science and scientific inquiry does not bear that out - there has been continual re-establishments and refinements of the "status quo" within almost all branches of science at some point or another. While there may be resistance from members of the scientific community when new theories arise or new evidence is uncovered that goes against the current modes of thinking (especially if their careers are built upon the old theories or evidence), there are always other members of the scientific community who see such new theories or evidence as opportunities. The way scientific careers are made is by finding a way to successfully challenge the "status quo."
When something comes along that claims to be an overthrow of the established order, but is simply an assemblage of bad science and questionable evidence -- ID, I'm looking at you -- yes, it gets summarily rejected by the community. "New stuff," however is what science and scientists live for. A solid theory or a verifiable body of evidence always wins out in the end.
You mistake "hostility" toward new ideas and information -- a commonplace religious reaction -- to skepticism, the scientific and wholly appropriate stance. Religion reacts by decrying the new information or idea as heresy, science reacts by demanding proof in the form of verifiable, measurable evidence. |
Thank you for clearing that up. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 05:02:53 PM · #571 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
IMO both systems of belief are hostile to new information when it threatens the status quo. Both systems of belief will blackball or shun any member of the peer group that attempts to establish a new status quo. |
And your opinion it remains, because in the case of scientific inquiry, it's a patently false statement. Science is neither a "belief system", nor is it hostile to new information. Science depends on new information in order for it to be considered science. What's so difficult to understand about that?
This silly tit-for-tat that fundamentalist god-believers engage in is pretty puerile. It shows a fairly basic lack of understanding. It would be easy to fob off, if the tide of general scientific ignorance weren't so devastating at the moment. |
Science is a belief system, currently a very popular one. And it is hostile to new information--look how hostile you are right now. Are you jumping to the conclusion that I'm a fundamentalist god-believer because imo science is a belief system? And if I persist in threatening the status quo of science as not-a-belief-system, what will you do to me? shun me? blackball me? call me names? |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 05:15:33 PM · #572 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
IMO both systems of belief are hostile to new information when it threatens the status quo. Both systems of belief will blackball or shun any member of the peer group that attempts to establish a new status quo. |
And your opinion it remains, because in the case of scientific inquiry, it's a patently false statement. Science is neither a "belief system", nor is it hostile to new information. Science depends on new information in order for it to be considered science. What's so difficult to understand about that?
This silly tit-for-tat that fundamentalist god-believers engage in is pretty puerile. It shows a fairly basic lack of understanding. It would be easy to fob off, if the tide of general scientific ignorance weren't so devastating at the moment. |
Science is a belief system, currently a very popular one. And it is hostile to new information--look how hostile you are right now. Are you jumping to the conclusion that I'm a fundamentalist god-believer because imo science is a belief system? And if I persist in threatening the status quo of science as not-a-belief-system, what will you do to me? shun me? blackball me? call me names? |
Also, thanks for very clearly showing an inability to dissociate your personality from your arguments, and for failing to recognize that criticism of an argument is not the same as criticism of your character.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 17:16:24. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 05:30:22 PM · #573 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Science is a belief system, currently a very popular one. And it is hostile to new information--look how hostile you are right now. Are you jumping to the conclusion that I'm a fundamentalist god-believer because imo science is a belief system? And if I persist in threatening the status quo of science as not-a-belief-system, what will you do to me? shun me? blackball me? call me names? |
If pointing out that your proclamations are wrong is calling you names, then I guess we'll be calling you names.
As I've said before (ad nauseum), I understand why believers would like to equate religious belief with scientific understanding. If both are just "belief systems" then both are equally valid and there can be no objective distinctions drawn to preference one over the other. If this were true, it would make religious arguments against science much easier. But just because you would like it to be so, doesn't change the fact that it is not.
The problem for the religious believer is that the argument is demonstrably, plainly false. The only way to avoid seeing that this conflation of the two is false is to willfully ignore certain obvious truths and deliberately shield oneself from an understanding of science and the scientific method. If you choose to stick your fingers in your ears, your head in the sand, and your head up your... (well, forget that part) then there will be nothing that Louis or I could say to you to that will make you understand.
Any honest inquiry, however, must acknowledge the differences.
Religioun is belief based on faith (belief without, or in the absence of evidence).
Scientific knowledge is based on evidence (testable, verifiable, measurable, observable data).
To say that these two approaches to knowledge are simply two flavors of belief is to be willfully obstinate in regard to the nature of both.
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 17:35:04. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 05:42:31 PM · #574 |
I admire that you firmly hold your own opinion &/or beliefs. I'm not out to change your mind. It is interesting to me that some scientific break-through ideas came in a non-logical flash of understanding, like a leap of faith, or an apple falling on your head. The human mind's ability to believe first, & then to find the impiric evidence after, is fascinating to me. Would it help if I described science as a systematic way of believing based on direct personal experience?
Message edited by author 2008-04-14 17:43:05. |
|
|
|
04/14/2008 06:08:40 PM · #575 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I admire that you firmly hold your own opinion &/or beliefs. I'm not out to change your mind. It is interesting to me that some scientific break-through ideas came in a non-logical flash of understanding, like a leap of faith, or an apple falling on your head. The human mind's ability to believe first, & then to find the empiric evidence after, is fascinating to me. Would it help if I described science as a systematic way of believing based on direct personal experience? |
No, that is actually even worse. Our "direct personal experience" of the world would appear to indicate that the Earth is flat, the sun and stars orbit around the Earth, that the sun is a different kind of celestial body from the stars, that astronomical bodies are essentially static and unchanging, that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat, that objects fall at different speeds based upon their weight, that water is a homogeneous substance made up of only one type of matter, etc., etc., etc.
All of these things were considered true at one point or another, and the "truth" of these things carried religious connotations. Science looked for and found new information that showed these beliefs to be false. If science was truly as hostile to new information as you want to believe (using the word deliberately as "in the absence of evidence and presence of evidence to the contrary"), then the true nature of none of these things would have been discovered. Science would have said, "well the new information doesn't fit the status quo, so it must be false" and gone home. Instead, each advancement was able to show to other scientists the evidence for its adoption, and skeptical scientists were able to conduct the experiments and gather the evidence for themselves in order to confirm the new claims. Later scientists continue to think of new ways to test the claims, which either result in further confirmation or the establishment of a new, evidence based claim, for which skeptical scientists could conduct the experiments and gather the evidence... [rinse and repeat as necessary].
Notice that nowhere along this chain is it ever required for anyone to believe (put faith in an idea in the absence of evidence) in a proposition. The minute you ask for or demand belief in the absence of scientific inquiry, you have stepped out of the realm of science altogether.
People can develop hypotheses prior to looking for ways to test their hypothesis and test its validity, but if all they do is come up with the hypothesis and declare it to be accurate, then they haven't engaged in science. |
|
