|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Assumptions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
We all know assumptions are a bad way for determining that something is "true" or not true. But there are 3 basic assumptions that everyone assumes.
1. I exist2. My senses sometimes work 3. Objective physical evidence is a valid way of justifying beliefs Its because if i dont exist then well its pointless to try to understand anything. And if my senses are always wrong then it is impossible to understand anything. And we know our senses are sometimes wrong hallucinations, or basic illusions support that. If physical evidence is not a valid way of justifying beliefs then we cant justify any belief so we cant gain or have any knowledge. now if you state god created everything you made one assumption more then the minimum you assume a god. But that's ok if you assume a god you have to provide support for a god. Using objective physical evidence. If you dont then you have an unsupported assumption and the idea or theory with the least assumptions is most likely correct. Example a ghost broke the TV. Assumption there is a ghostEVP, EM, blood dripping from the walls, things moving alone caught on camera .... And other phenomena support the ghost assumption the theory the gosth did it is likely true. No such objective evidence then it is more likely that something else broke the tv, like a short in the wiring, Checking the cables, the fuses, the power spikes support that assumption, so it is likely true. The thing is you can never say something is 100% true because you would assume you have all the evidence and all the facts. Now creationism or ID assumes: that a god existsThat he created everything in its current form You need to provide objective physical evidence for those. Evolution assumes:-Common descent that every living thing has a parent. (the absolute beginning of life is covered by abiogenesis) - Descent with modification that "mutations" accure within offspring - Natural selection that the offspring that have "better" mutations will most likely have more offspring Evidence for these assumptions (just a few there are tones more) -common descent: genetic evidence confirms common descent, so does the fossil record and lots of other stuff-Descent with modification: genetic evidence confirms this if you look at your genome and compare it to your mother and father you will find that about 4 gens are completely different from both of your parents.And lots of other stuf too like selective breeding ... - Natural selection: live examples are mice on Madeira, lizards in Australia, .... If you want your creation theory or ID theory to stand with the theory of evolution you have to provide evidence for your assumptions. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13019 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread copied here from the Assumptions thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Where to even begin with so much awful pseudo-philosophy.
A short response is that science is all about pragmatics. If our assumptions work, we keep them.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
1. I exist 2. My senses sometimes work 3. Objective physical evidence is a valid way of justifying beliefs The last one is not something that everyone necessarily accepts. Pure rationalists may reject it (if there are any these days). But I just thought I'd pop in and say that you have basically stumbled on to the 'Three Primary Truths':
quote: I don't have anything to add to the meat of your post at this time which basically seems to address parsimony and empiricism, but I thought you might be interested in that little tidbit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
frako writes:
quote: Well, no. That isn't an assumption I can make. It's known as "Cartesian Doubt." His Discourse in First Philosophy sought to derive it rather than assume it. It's where we get the phrase, "I think, therefore I am." The idea is that we just might be "plagued by demons," as he put it. In modern terms, we might say that we could be "brains in a vat" or "computer simulations" (think The Matrix). So how can we tell that what we see around us, even our very selves, is actually real? Well, suppose we aren't what we think we are. Even if we were plagued by these demons, they are plaguing something. There is a consciousness that is being affected. The fact that I can think indicates that I exist somewhere in some form. Everything that I experience may be a simulation, but I am experiencing them. "I think, therefore I am." The problem with foundational assumptions is that nobody agrees on what they are.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
amp1022 Junior Member (Idle past 4454 days) Posts: 13 Joined: |
When they see a living thing, don't most people assume it has at least one parent? When you see a "man-made" object, don't you assume it was made by a man (or woman)? I would say that creationism should be added to that list of assumptions everyone makes. One that everyone SHOULD make actually. Simple common sense will answer most questions that science struggles with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but I can't think of a single question that Creationism answers.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
When they see a living thing, don't most people assume it has at least one parent? No. That's a conclusion based on evidence.
When you see a "man-made" object, don't you assume it was made by a man (or woman)? No. That's a tautology.
I would say that creationism should be added to that list of assumptions everyone makes. No, not people who have studied and understood the evidence.
Simple common sense will answer most questions that science struggles with. Science answers questions based on evidence. Why should we consider the "common sense" opinions of people who haven't even studied the evidence?Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Simple common sense will answer most questions that science struggles with. Really? Based on common sense, what's the charge on an electron? You know, since science struggled with that for about 30 years. I'd love to see a demonstration of your "science by common sense" methods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Based on common sense, matter is solid, the sun goes around the Earth, and there are no supernatural entities affecting life on this planet.
Well, one out of three ain't bad.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
amp1022 writes:
That's true. However, some of us prefer that the answer actually be correct.Simple common sense will answer most questions that science struggles with. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
franko writes: 1. I exist2. My senses sometimes work 3. Objective physical evidence is a valid way of justifying beliefs 1. I exist is not an assumption, I can demonstrate that I am a thinking agent and therefore necessarily exist. The fact that I cannot demonstrate this to anyone other then myself is irrelivant. 2. I operate on the basis that my senses sometimes work because, logiclly, it is the most pragmatic approach (regardless of if my perception of reality is accurate or not). An assumption of the fact isn't necessary, only the perception of it until a better course of action is demonstrated. 3. Objective physical evidence is a valid way to justify claims, considering this perception of reality is a paradigm based on the idea of a physical universe with no reason to assume otherwise. =/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3990 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined:
|
quote: Sorry, but I disagree. There is most certainly one question that creationism answers...
How can I avoid feeling insignificant in a scary world? Another way of looking at it is that creationism answers all questions...
God Did It
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry, but I disagree. There is most certainly one question that creationism answers... How can I avoid feeling insignificant in a scary world? I imagine you are talking about "Special Creation", that man is made in God's image and is something special. Yeah, I can see how that could be marketed as a real feel good pill.
Another way of looking at it is that creationism answers all questions... God Did It What is really sad and pitiful is that there really are people who could be satisfied with "God did it" as an answer.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3990 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined: |
quote: I tend to equate the term creationism to the YECs. I'm assuming that this is what you mean by special creation, so yes. Really got to be specific here, don't we?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024