Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 286 of 304 (374338)
01-04-2007 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by aiguy
01-03-2007 9:14 PM


aiguy writes:
Percy writes:
This doesn't just imply that in the future we'll find surprising natural phenomena, but that what we actually define as natural will change. It won't. It can't and remain scientific.
I disagree. Think about "action at a distance". Newton accepted that gravity was a force that acted unmediated across space. Einstein believed that only local causality was possible, and that action at a distance was impossible. Then quantum physics reintroduced that concept in yet an even stranger way. QM changed a great deal about what we believe is "natural", including that the physical world is deterministic (which is a very big deal indeed).
You're using the wrong definition of natural. Natural is not "currently accepted scientific thinking." Natural is that which is detectable by us because of its interactions with the world around us. The definition of natural did not change with the advent of the quantum age. It cannot change. It will never change.
I'm surprised at people's animosity toward philosophy. I can only believe you have not studied it. There of course would be no science at all without philosophy. Where do you think concepts like "methodological naturalism" come from?
There's no hostility toward philosophy here. I actually own books by Popper, and by Ruse, Witgenstein, Kant, Hume, Spinoza and Plato, too (and Alan Sokal, if he counts). I love philosophy. What your sensing is a rejection of approaches such as yours that argue that philosophical ruminations trump reality. You're violating the quote in your own signature by using reasoning unconstrained by empiricism. I live in the real world.
If there are causes that transcend physical interactions as we understand them, then science - as we understand it - will not explain them. If WE DO NOT KNOW, then this always remains a possibility.
If there is more than matter and energy in the universe, then if it is detectable because of its interactions with the rest of the universe then it is natural and amenable to scientific study. Once again, the definition of natural is not that which science can explain. It is that which science can study. A phenomena that science can study but not explain is still natural.
And if we eventually discover phenomena in the universe based upon neither matter nor energy, it'll just be another natural phenomena, not a transcendence of other natural phenomena. You don't seem to realize that your language is very similar to creationists arguing for a role for the supernatural in science.
And once again you say that I agree with. I would encourage you to review your statements and see that you really have vacillated between statements of epistemological and methodological naturalism.
I've simply described the way science works and how it defines the natural. Your supposed philosophical contradictions can't change the way the world really works.
You (and Crash) however lapse into materialist dogma when you say all things must be explainable within physicalism.
I think you're being incredibly picky over a minor point. If you want to be incredibly precise then yes, certainly, we must concede that there may be more than just matter and energy out there. But so what? If we can detect it then it's still part of the natural world, and all Crash and I are saying is two basic things:
  • That you can't use qualities such as complexity and difficulty of reductionism to argue for phenomena for which there is no evidence.
  • That consciousness is based upon completely natural phenomena.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix list of philosophers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by aiguy, posted 01-03-2007 9:14 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 1:29 PM Percy has replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 304 (374357)
01-04-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Quetzal
01-03-2007 6:36 PM


Now you appear to be asserting that one can only have a concept of something that actually exists.
No, I'm not trying to be that mathematical about it. It's more like a detective surveying a crime scene and talking about possible motives.
In fact, the examples show clearly that life is NOT ordered - it contains a tremendous amount of randomness.
I'm not defining ordered as /= random. Perhaps I should use the word 'purposeful'. Life seems to be purposeful. You will argue that is a squishy sort of term, but if we are to explore the idea of an ID we have to, as best as we can, adopt that assumption and see if it fits the evidence.
After all, chaos is basically the opposite of design/order, right?
No, I don't think so. A design can use chaos where relevant. Watch the floor of the NYSE for instance: It operates under certain rules, but each individual trade is not governed by the central authority, and so trading fits no simple pattern.
Beyond that, I'm afraid I don't see the connection in your reference to zip drives and DNA. If you think it relevant, please clarify.
No, zip file compression, like 'send to compressed (zipped) folder' under Windows? Perhaps a better illustration would be lossy compression, like MP3. It's been found that certain sounds can be modeled quite compactly by spec'ing frequency and amplitude plus 'noise'. The hiss that accompanies certain consonants or the crash of a cymbal are two examples. So you don't code the entire waveform, just say 'give me some noise within this envelope'. So MP3 uses randomness in it's design, along with more direct encoding. We look at the compact encoding of MP3 as a sign of brilliance, not evidence that it wasn't designed.
Not really. I'm ordinarily not given to that kind of metaphysical navel-gazing.
Well, then, you can use your brain, but not speculate on how it came to be, beyond its purely physical ancestry. To use your brain is to make enormous assumptions about its relevance to the external world. Those who wish to speculate on the genesis or even meaning of the mind must examine those assumptions.
Indeed, I find it ever so much more interesting as a purely natural phenomenon than I would if it was the product of some deity's manipulation.
If I may be able to bring him up again, C.S. Lewis describes having this same emotion. To put it as succinctly as I can think to do, if there is a creator he is of greater complexity and depth than the natural world. The creator is the random number generator, without him you are limiting yourself to a deterministic world. To the extent you don't think nature is deterministic you are a mystic like me.
so far as I know no one has actually demonstrated the existence of "spirit"
There are a whole bunch of people who claim just that. Did you investigate or just discard them out of hand? I'm going to be accused of ascribing 'base motives' again, but if you are truly just an advanced animal, nothing is more likely than that there are all sorts of things about which you have no concept whatsoever. I bet that beautiful dog of yours has never wondered how the universe came to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2007 6:36 PM Quetzal has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 288 of 304 (374389)
01-04-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by aiguy
01-04-2007 3:55 AM


I have never said we should give up, of course.
If there can be no success in scientific understanding of consciousness, as you seem to think, or guess, or whatever - what's the point of studying it?
Why not just say that everything is explained by the fundamental physical forces, and be done with it?
If that floats your boat. It's a perfectly acceptable explanation, if one completely lacking in any interesting details. But you have to start somewhere, right?
It is what is missing, currently, from physicalist accounts of mind.
It's just different patterns of neural activity. Frequency is different than amplitude, so it only stands to reason that, since we have the organs to detect frequency, the brain must have some way of perceiving that information.
Sorry, but it is not "my" necessary/sufficient dichotomy.
I don't care whose it is, and an argument from anonymous authority doesn't go very far with me. It's a useless construct, as I've amply demonstrated - it can't seem to handle simple situations where one of several equivalent things is necessary.
Which multiple different things are equivalent here? Brains and computers? Neurons and transistors?
Keys and swiss-army knives. Any and all. A hammer is necessary to pound a nail, but you can do it with a screwdriver, too. Does that mean that nails pound themselves? No, of course not. One of several different things is still "necessary", but this construct doesn't support such reasoning - as evidenced by these comments of yours:
quote:
To illustrate, I pointed out that although if you took the key out of the ignition of a car it would stop, this did not mean that the key was a necessary component of car motion - and of course I'm right, cars are perfectly capable of moving without an ignition key.
quote:
Of course brains are necessary for consciousness in human beings, yes, but we do not know if they are necessary for consciousness in general, because we do not know what causes consciousness. Gasoline is necessary for motion in gasoline-powered cars, but it is not necessary for motion in electric cars.
Necessary/sufficient doesn't generate knowledge; it's simply a blind for you to exploit language ambiguity to score points in debate. It's clearly ludicrous.
Most people agree that human beings experience consciousness
Fallacious argument ad populum. Your own sources came right out and said that we have no means by which to detect consciousness, so how could "most people" actually know anything about it? Their testimony is meaningless.
Are you joking? I have never said I have concluded human intelligence is not the product of natural causes, so you are once again putting words in my mouth!
Come the fuck on! You've been taking that position the entire debate, and you certainly began by substituting yourself into the place of someone who was doing exactly that.
Well, fair enough. I guess you think you can argue for someone's side without advancing their position. Whatever. If you didn't mean to take that position, I'll accept it as just another of our failures to communicate.
Is a dog conscious? A lizard? A fly? Is consciousness graded?
Who knows? We can't even detect consciousness. I don't think humans are all that conscious, so obviously I don't expect anybody else to be all that conscious, either.
I have asked you several times for how you think consciousness arises in brains, and you have failed to answer:
That's completely false. I gave you the answer, but you felt it was simplistic.
Well, I'm not a neurologist. I'm just a guy. It's the best explanation I know, and it seems more than sufficient for my purposes. It's more than sufficient for me to conclude that consciousness isn't magic but mundane.
You seem like an angry fellow.
I'm not really angry. Just frustrated at a debate opponent who won't address simple questions, demands the use of debate constructs that allow him to misrepresent my views, and shifts positions constantly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 3:55 AM aiguy has not replied

aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 304 (374406)
01-04-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Percy
01-04-2007 8:29 AM


Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
You're using the wrong definition of natural. Natural is not "currently accepted scientific thinking." Natural is that which is detectable by us because of its interactions with the world around us. The definition of natural did not change with the advent of the quantum age. It cannot change. It will never change.
Perhaps a different definition, yes. The point here is we do not know - can not know - what is or is not natural. Say I ask you, "Is it natural for something to happen for absolutely no reason whatsoever? Some inanimate thing to simply, spontaneously do something without something else causing that action?" If you were a Newtonian, he would say "No, that is impossible, and we have never detected it either. Every action is caused by an antecedent cause, so spontaneous action is supernatural". A quantum physicist would disagree.
If you were Einstein, and I asked "Is it possible for something that happens in one corner of the universe to affect what happens in another corner of the universe instantaneously?", he would say that is not natural, and we have never detected that, and we cannot detect it because it is impossible. That would be supernatural. Bohr, however, disagreed.
I suppose you could mean that in retrospect we know that these things were natural all along; well, sure.
Percy writes:
There's no hostility toward philosophy here.
LOL! I guess you haven't been reading Crash's posts.
Percy writes:
What your sensing is a rejection of approaches such as yours that argue that philosophical ruminations trump reality. You're violating the quote in your own signature by using reasoning unconstrained by empiricism. I live in the real world.
Like Crash, I'm afraid, you have cast my arguments into straw men. Saying we do not know is simply different from saying that we do know, and I don't understand how you can misconstrue this.
Percy writes:
If there is more than matter and energy in the universe, then if it is detectable because of its interactions with the rest of the universe then it is natural and amenable to scientific study.
Agreed, of course.
Percy writes:
Once again, the definition of natural is not that which science can explain. It is that which science can study. A phenomena that science can study but not explain is still natural.
Again - we don't know what is natural or not until we discover it - by your definition.
Percy writes:
And if we eventually discover phenomena in the universe based upon neither matter nor energy, it'll just be another natural phenomena, not a transcendence of other natural phenomena. You don't seem to realize that your language is very similar to creationists arguing for a role for the supernatural in science.
This is really a first for me, being cast in with creationists. Here is why you misunderstand me: You keep saying "matter and energy". Imagine we discover some other ontological class entirely, called gunderplitzen, that makes people conscious, survives the death of the body, and, oh, folds proteins too. Now, you have said "everything is matter and energy - there is nothing else!" and I have objected to this, because if we discover gunderplitzen (not mass/energy but something else entirely, maybe not conserved, etc) then you would be wrong. At that point we could turn around and say "Gunderplitzen is natural, because it effects things that we can experience and measure", but that doesn't mean you aren't wrong now when you say matter/energy accounts for everything.
Percy writes:
I've simply described the way science works and how it defines the natural. Your supposed philosophical contradictions can't change the way the world really works.
I don't know what you mean.
Percy writes:
I think you're being incredibly picky over a minor point. If you want to be incredibly precise then yes, certainly, we must concede that there may be more than just matter and energy out there. But so what? If we can detect it then it's still part of the natural world...
So what? Here's the importance: Many people believe there is something causal in the world besides matter and energy. If scientists dogmatically claim "There can be no such thing", then these people will rightly claim "You scientists are just like religious people! You are dogmatic! You believe things on faith! My faith is just as good as yours, and I say God rules the world!!!" That is the problem.
So instead of making these dogmatic statements, you need to be more careful. You need to say, "Sure, science is always open to all possibilities. Maybe there is non-physical (non-matter/energy) causality, and maybe there isn't. The day we can measure these causal effects of God, then science will adopt the God theory. Until then, keep your religion out of science, please".
Percy writes:
, and all Crash and I are saying is two basic things:
* That you can't use qualities such as complexity and difficulty of reductionism to argue for phenomena for which there is no evidence.
* That consciousness is based upon completely natural phenomena.
I have never argued for phenomena for which there is no evidence, and I have never said consciousness is not based on natural phenomena. I have said we do not know.
The difference between you and Crash on one hand, and me on the other, is this: I am a scientist, and you believe in Scientism.

Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Percy, posted 01-04-2007 8:29 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 01-04-2007 2:19 PM aiguy has not replied
 Message 292 by TheMystic, posted 01-04-2007 3:49 PM aiguy has replied
 Message 299 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2007 8:42 PM aiguy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 290 of 304 (374435)
01-04-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by aiguy
01-04-2007 1:29 PM


Well, I've had my say and you've had yours. If we continued I think it'd just be repetitive.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 1:29 PM aiguy has not replied

melatonin
Member (Idle past 6287 days)
Posts: 126
From: Cymru
Joined: 02-13-2006


Message 291 of 304 (374437)
01-04-2007 2:27 PM


You can watch one scientific 'mysterian' (in the nicest possible way) proponent of consciousness, Stuart Hameroff (quantum effect theory), at the beyond belief website (download and watch at leisure)...
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/
Ramachandran's talk that follows Hameroff's is well worth the time too.
ABE: ahhh, they've changed the files from .mp4 to .gvp, you'll need the silly google video player to watch them.
Edited by melatonin, : No reason given.
Edited by melatonin, : spelling

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 5:04 PM melatonin has replied
 Message 296 by Percy, posted 01-04-2007 6:02 PM melatonin has replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 304 (374463)
01-04-2007 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by aiguy
01-04-2007 1:29 PM


The day we can measure these causal effects of God, then science will adopt the God theory.
You don't actually mean that, of course, because things like creation are pretty measurable causal effects of God.
I am a scientist, and you believe in Scientism.
Bless you, my son, I'm so glad somebody else sees that. Sorry, I'm no doubt diminishing your credibility by agreeing with you. I'm a step back from you: I'm not a scientist, even. I have no need or desire to categorize reality, I just follow the evidence where it leads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 1:29 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 4:59 PM TheMystic has replied

aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 304 (374507)
01-04-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by TheMystic
01-04-2007 3:49 PM


My goodness, Mystic. I'm supposed to be on THE OTHER SIDE. I've only been on this forum for a few days, and I've been beaten up by the people I basically agree with for pointing out that scientific assertions need to be limited to what science can actually demonstrate.
Well, I really do fit somewhere in the middle I guess. I don't find many people who are comfortable saying these three little words: WE DON'T KNOW.
I'm quite certain that evolutionary theory is as certain as scientific certainty can be, and I believe that "ID Theory" is as vacuous and unscientific as anything we can imagine.
But I also strongly object to those who overstate what science lets us know, proclaiming that interactions of matter and energy MUST BE all that there is, and that they simply MUST be able to explain how life began and why we experience consciousness.
We are all way too polarized. We either pretend that our particular relgion is the only true way, or we pretend that materialism is the only true way.
The universe is still mysterious, after all of our scientific achievements, and those who don't see that are as dogmatic as the most incorrigible fundamentalist.
Oh - I missed this part:
Mystic writes:
You don't actually mean that, of course, because things like creation are pretty measurable causal effects of God.
No, Mystic, I really do disagree with you entirely on this. The "God Hypothesis" is not a coherent scientific hypothesis at all. We do not know what "God" means in terms of empirically verifiable measurements of any type. If you don't believe that evolutionary accounts for life, then you need to put forth a meaningful theory that explains and predicts things more successfully. Saying "God", or "intelligent causation" did it is - scientifically speaking - saying nothing at all.
Edited by aiguy, : No reason given.

Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by TheMystic, posted 01-04-2007 3:49 PM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by TheMystic, posted 01-05-2007 7:33 AM aiguy has not replied

aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 304 (374509)
01-04-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by melatonin
01-04-2007 2:27 PM


Fantastic link, melatonin - thanks a lot! I need to take a break from this forum to watch all these videos!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by melatonin, posted 01-04-2007 2:27 PM melatonin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by melatonin, posted 01-04-2007 5:37 PM aiguy has replied

melatonin
Member (Idle past 6287 days)
Posts: 126
From: Cymru
Joined: 02-13-2006


Message 295 of 304 (374526)
01-04-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by aiguy
01-04-2007 5:04 PM


No problem. Some very good presentations at the event. I'm really looking forward to this years event (november I think).
Hameroff gets a pretty hard time, heheh. I tend towards the idea that Dennett et al. are correct in that the 'hard problem' will dissolve with continued advances. The 'why' questions are always going to be raised, but with time it will fade. Cognitive-Affective neuroscience/neuropsychology/neurophysiology will just continue on pretty much ignoring the grand philosophical arguments.
It's all very interesting but at this point we are just piecing together the parts of the 'elephant' we focus on and I see no reason why we won't produce a valid explanation of the 'elephant' itself. But there is lots of room for philosophical analysis and hypothesis, but we need falsifiable objective approaches to apply science and that is why at this point, we will carry on regardless of the phenomenological crew.
We didn't even know what Brodmann area 10 of the PFC did less than 10 years ago, now we have a good insight into its functional nature thanks to Burgess and Frith et al. With time I'm sure we will get there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 5:04 PM aiguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 6:31 PM melatonin has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 296 of 304 (374540)
01-04-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by melatonin
01-04-2007 2:27 PM


Great find! If anyone knows how to get these videos onto an iPod that would be great!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by melatonin, posted 01-04-2007 2:27 PM melatonin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by melatonin, posted 01-04-2007 6:31 PM Percy has not replied

aiguy
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 304 (374548)
01-04-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by melatonin
01-04-2007 5:37 PM


Hi melatonin-
melatonin writes:
Hameroff gets a pretty hard time, heheh.
Hameroff, I'm afraid, is actually not all that smart. His site has some real howlers about the evolution of consciousness. For example, while he suggests that it is perfectly conceivable that zombies (identical behaviorally but without consciousness) could exist, he says organisms without consciousness wouldn't be motivated to survive and reproduce (uh, then I guess they wouldn't be behaviorally identical, would they now).
I also find Penrose's contribution to the ORCH/OR model pretty uncompelling. His Godelian arguments had been trounced about a decade ago, and he never rehabilitated them.
melatonin writes:
I tend towards the idea that Dennett et al. are correct in that the 'hard problem' will dissolve with continued advances. The 'why' questions are always going to be raised, but with time it will fade. Cognitive-Affective neuroscience/neuropsychology/neurophysiology will just continue on pretty much ignoring the grand philosophical arguments.
I agree - pretty much. Despite my run-in with Crash here about making grand philosophical arguments of his own (there absolutely must be nothing but neural transmitters that explain consciousness!), I've tended toward Denettian functionalism for most of my life (which means, of course, that neurotransmitters actually don't explain it at all!!!).
On the other hand, I read something by Stapp about QM uncertainty and will, and I can't dismiss the possibility entirely that there is a micro-macro coupling in our brains and that something that guides waveform collapse. Then I go back over the whole Chinese Room scandal and I'm not really sure that any of the responses actually work at all. Then I read Chalmers again, and realize in my heart of hearts I do believe there is an explanatory gap...
melatonin writes:
It's all very interesting but at this point we are just piecing together the parts of the 'elephant' we focus on and I see no reason why we won't produce a valid explanation of the 'elephant' itself. But there is lots of room for philosophical analysis and hypothesis, but we need falsifiable objective approaches to apply science and that is why at this point, we will carry on regardless of the phenomenological crew.
Exactly so, and I don't know anybody who says we shouldn't.
melatonin writes:
We didn't even know what Brodmann area 10 of the PFC did less than 10 years ago, now we have a good insight into its functional nature thanks to Burgess and Frith et al. With time I'm sure we will get there.
We are getting somewhere faster than ever, that's for sure. I really want one of those SQUID helmets to wear and watch myself think.
Maybe we'll learn someday what Mary learns when she leaves the black-and-white room, and what it is like to be a bat.
Edited by aiguy, : No reason given.

Science is not simply reason - it is much less than that. It is reason constrained by empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by melatonin, posted 01-04-2007 5:37 PM melatonin has not replied

melatonin
Member (Idle past 6287 days)
Posts: 126
From: Cymru
Joined: 02-13-2006


Message 298 of 304 (374549)
01-04-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Percy
01-04-2007 6:02 PM


Can't help you there Percy. They were orignally .mp4 files (I have a few on my HD), which I guess would either work in an iPod or be readily converted, but they have recently changed all the files to .gvp.
If you know how to get from divx to an ipod friendly format, the gvi converter software may be of use:
naevius.com is for sale | HugeDomains
But I think virtualdub, which is freeware, can convert google video to divx (.avi).
There are some really good discussions, and it also contains the moment Degrasse-Tyson gave Dawkins a verbal spanking.
ABE: right, scrub all the above blah.
If you go here, Percy...
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
You can download each individual session file in Ipod friendly format via the 'download' link in each video (just click on each session link and change the download format to ipod/sonyPSP).
Edited by melatonin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Percy, posted 01-04-2007 6:02 PM Percy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 299 of 304 (374571)
01-04-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by aiguy
01-04-2007 1:29 PM


The difference between you and Crash on one hand, and me on the other, is this: I am a scientist, and you believe in Scientism.
Oh, dear lord. "Scientism" - the last, gasping defense of those who can't stand science crowding out their cherished woowoo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 1:29 PM aiguy has not replied

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 304 (374647)
01-05-2007 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by aiguy
01-04-2007 4:59 PM


I'm quite certain that evolutionary theory is as certain as scientific certainty can be, and I believe that "ID Theory" is as vacuous and unscientific as anything we can imagine.
I don't know how to respond to things like this without being insulting. 'as certain as scientific certainty' can be? That's perfectly absurd to me. As certain as say, white light being composed of many colors, which I can test with my own prizm? You were advising some of the others about how their stubborness is viewed by THE OTHER SIDE, but this is just another example: The unwillingness of you guys to be honest about the level of evidence for evolution. We on the other side are frustrated by the inability to even have a rational conversation about this subject. And by the way, if you were open minded you'd realize that ID'ers might be complete morons and still be right in their basic premise. As far as we know, scientific evidence is not influenced by the intelligence of the observer.
The "God Hypothesis" is not a coherent scientific hypothesis at all.
Again, you start dancing like the rest. You said "the day we can measure..." and I merely pointed out that measuring the effects of ['the hypothesized', does that help?] God is not the problem.
Saying "God", or "intelligent causation" did it is - scientifically speaking - saying nothing at all.
Again, this is more a criticism of what you call science than anything. Science has nothing to say to one of the most interesting questions man has ever dealt with? What the hell good is it then? To me this is no different than saying consciousness, or time, is not a scientific issue because we can't as yet define it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by aiguy, posted 01-04-2007 4:59 PM aiguy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by RickJB, posted 01-05-2007 8:44 AM TheMystic has replied
 Message 302 by Phalanx, posted 01-05-2007 9:11 AM TheMystic has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024