Listen. Please listen. Belief in Evolution involves logical conclusions based on empirical (the one which can be observed with our senses, recorded by instruments and experimented with) evidence. This is the exact description of the methodology developed by Xn theologians in the 15th (16th?) century. Thus when you argue logic and evidence you argue theology to theologians, religion to religious. Since E-sts in their mental development are 5 centuries behind Xns, their logic is more a parody on logic and their evidence is always a fake. Thus when you confront them they have no choice but to desert to bulling, trolling, insults and other political means to impose their religious belief and shut up any opposition or even questioning. But still you get what you ask for. Arguing evidence and logic against evidence and logic whatever are the qualities on either side is like arguing capitalism against socialism and not knowing that both socialism and capitalism are perverted mind constructions of the same evil, Karl Marx and both arguing sides are deeply brainwashed into Marxism. Another funny thing about logic and evidence is that E-n started gaining first acceptance because it was considered as an evidence of existence of God (the 2nd volume was not written yet), while now the same thing is widely considered to be an evidence of absence of God. So much for logic and evidence. In 17th century Xn theologian Isaac Newton rejected logical conclusions based on empirical evidence. Since then all good=useful theories were developed by followers of Newtons principals which rendered logic based on empirical evidence totally useless. Retrogrades and incapable were still clinging to empiricism of the 15th century to justify their religious believes; they kept on developing their methodology you see today as dominating. (It was not a a real development, in the end their methodology always ended back into the Medieval Theology.) Somewhere on the road they put on the flag Carl Popper who demanded that hypotheses have to be falsified in order to be scientific blah blah blah. Then the distinguished member Hoosier8 got excited by Richard Feynman and posted here the video where Feynman was getting lost in his own vagueness and was claiming that scientific theories get always proven wrong and that Newton somehow was proven wrong. (I wonder when and by whom? Maybe by Einstein, who claimed that his TOR was valid because it was in compliance with Newtons theory? Einstein (the last one I know who bothered to read Newton) understood that one of the cornerstones of Newtons principals was the rule that any new theory must be in full compliance with old ones). Looks like this is what you have been hearing all your life: empirical evidence, logic, hypotheses must be falsifiable, theories get proven wrong, science seeking truth, science making explanations, etc all backwards obscurantism, all parroting imitations of Xn theology of the 15th century. This is what you bring to the debate as unnecessary and burdening luggage. Now think, if you have been so brainwashed, what do you expect from people who have limited abilities and no formal (but all liberal art and earth science) education? Once I was in your shoes. I even believed that evolution was some kind of science. But when I started talking on the forums and asking basic questions I as well was surprised by zealous fanaticism, venom spitting and sometimes even mental derangement of believers in E-n. Would one need any more proof of invalidity of E-n? What other flaws do you need to look for? Of course, there has been not a single observation of the claimed phenomena or as Einstein would say event of macro or microevolution. As well E-sts can believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster existing or once born and lived or living somewhere in the infinite universe. Of course, MillerUrey experiment is a fake as it did not produce amino acids found in life but amino acids found everywhere else and produced in many ways. Etc,etc endless amount of fakes. Of course, abiogenesis and evolution have been demonstrated by all needed experiments to be impossible in the same way and partially for the same reason as perpetual mobile has been demonstrated to be impossible (remember, ROFL, the false claim that one cannot prove negative?:0 ). The French academy of science stopped accepting claims of invention of perpetuum mobile over 2 centuries ago, but E-ts still claim it (decrease in entropy) is possible somewhere somehow. E-ts believe in something that has never been seen, witnessed, heard or recorded, in something that has been demonstrated to be impossible within the frame of natural philosophy, that contradicts propositions of laws of nature, including but not limited to Thermodynamics, Theory of Information, all propositions of laws of genetics (BTW suggested by another Xn theologian). Take it easy and learn to have fan living in the darkest times of human history when human understanding of nature is put 500 years back. Actually one may say it is put back into caves, because 500 years ago, when people did not know the most propositions of natural laws, empiricism was a step forward; while now, when so many propositions has been written, going 500 years back is going back to caves, when a belief in the FSM or an equal belief that heat may be trapped was not out of question. Ask, search around, google how many scientists, PhDs believe that heat can be trapped in a natural process? Would not a cave man be an intellectual if to compare with 97% of university professors? Dont you see a reason to ROFL, just ROFL? Can I see a smile?
I see a smile! This is all what counts for me! I know it is a different world I've opened for you. I understand it may be shocking. Take your time to get oriented . As I have addressed you with a full respect ( you will not deny that, will you?) I will respectfully answer any question or argument you may have. Another choice for you is to shy, run away from something you have difficulties to understand instead of asking for clarifications.
Well, it is a bit of a bizarre thread.. which doesn't really seem appropriate, as an analysis of a particular member seems to be the goal. I sifted through the OP, & once i got past the acronyms, i understand what you are saying. I agree to a point, & my old thread about 'Anti Science' is very similar, in following the thread of science & reason in human history. And while i do see the historical progression with the reformation, the enlightenment, moving into the age of reason, & exploding into modern science, peaking, imo, mid last century. I do not see any real distinction between empiricism of old, & now. Empirical truth is empirical truth, regardless of when it was discovered. AND, Truth is Truth, whether we know it, or acknowledge it, or not. Just because we do not know for certain what happened regarding origins, does not mean it did not happen. Obviously, it did. And any consensus, or lack thereof, about origins have no effect on the reality of what actually did happen. The mental masturbations of men, pontificating about mysteries in the universe may be amusing to any Cosmic Watchers, but they do not necessarily indicate any knowledge about Reality. But Reality is there, whether we know it, or not. I agree that the arrogance of modern man, thinking just because he has built upon the knowledge base makes him smarter than those in the past is absurd. Accumulated knowledge is just that.. accumulated knowledge. And unfortunately, much of what is called 'knowledge', is misinformation.. falsehoods passing for truth. IMO there is an 'empirical truth' that is objective, independent of the opinions of men. There is also a subjective 'truth' which is mostly opinion, but can, on occasion, be reflective of reality, if only by chance. But any claims of 'brainwash' have to be shown, empirically, by the facts. There has to be a standard of empiricism that is not based on popular opinion, or a consensus of self appointed experts, or the declarations of authority. Facts are facts, & are beyond the meddling of propagandists. Oh, they will try, & fool many people, but the facts remain, indifferent to the manipulations of the deceivers It is difficult, but not impossible, to 'debate' empirical facts with those who relate only by emotion. You may not change anyone's perceptions, as those run deep, & are more the result of indoctrination, rather than any self discovery. The evolution debate, which you seem to be addressing, is an example of that, imo. Facts, reason, & obvious flaws to the 'theory' are easily dismissed by the True Believers, & no amount of reasoning will convince them. But this only shows the limits of empiricism, & how humans are NOT completely empirical & emotional, all the time. We are a combination of beliefs & experience, blended with what we have been taught by esteemed others, & confirmed by respected peers. Very little of our knowledge base is grounded in personal experience. We mostly live by extrapolation, reasoning that since a pattern of reality repeats itself, we can be confident it will do so when we engage it, as well. It is like flying in an jet. We don't know all about aerodynamics, or physics, or turbine engines.. but we get on the plane, & fly around with confidence that past history will produce a positive outcome when we do it. The same is true with cars, air conditioners, computers, & just about everything in the world. Even floating logs are something we 'believe' in, as an empirical reality. If i cut down a pine tree, & tossed it into a river, you would predict it to float, as your experience & knowledge of reality leads you to conclude this. But, if it was some unknown wood, you might predict it to float, but if it was an ironwood tree, you might be surprised to learn it does not.. an exception to the rule, & an aberration in your knowledge base. There are physical, empirical reasons for it not floating, but you have to dig deeper to discover why. I don't really see a 'different world'. I'm fairly grounded in this one, & it has been fine for me. Of course, there are many 'fantasy worlds' out there, with many different belief systems. I am not conversant with all of them, but i have a pretty good basis in many of them. By 'fantasy world' i mean a belief system, including mine. These are beyond the empirical, & are the mysterious blend of upbringing, indoctrination, peer influence, experience, & bias. Very little of what people 'believe' about the universe is based in personally verified fact. Most is extrapolated conjecture, or admiration of what others have said. The only thing constant, it seems, is the arrogance & dogmatism with which these beliefs are presented. it does not matter what world view you examine, they all seem to have the common denominator of absolute conviction, dogmatic assertion, & jealous devotion. I see it in atheists, creationists, evolutionists, theists, agnostics, & every human spectrum of belief. Because of that, it is easy for me to dismiss your 'opinion' about the nature of the universe as merely that: your opinion. My standards for empiricism are pretty high, & are not easily dissuaded by assertion & bluff, or any claims of supernatural knowledge. Different world views imply different worlds.. & that is the problem with human beings. We actually exist on the same planet, but we live in different worlds.
I didn’t mean a confrontation, but a conversation. Let me try to explain again that age of reason is a dark age. You give a leveler to your reason, his reason, their reason. It is the same as giving leveler to your beliefs, their beliefs, my beliefs. It is very difficult to find a common language. You cannot reason the universe or laws of nature. Who created whom – you created the nature according to your reason, or the nature created you according to its reason? Newton’s work is named mathematical principals of natural philosophy. E.I. natural philosophy comes up with mathematical equations as the result of observations of physical events. Empirical evidence and reason have no place in natural philosophy. I will omit Newtown’s chapter on place of God in natural philosophy. No observed events, no following mathematical equations – no cookie for you however good is your reason, however many people agree with it and whatever experiments confirming your ideas are. You seek and seek the Truth and all in wrong places What is the truth? What is your truth and what is my truth? I hold as true that masses are mutually attracted and a space ship should accelerate 9.81 m2/sec in order to overcome the attraction of the mass of the earth. I hold as true that heat always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process. This truth prevents all mentally stable people from jumping from a bridge with a hope to fly up and from trying to boil water in a kettle by putting it on ice. I don’t really need to float wood and expect it to float or drawn. There are mathematical equations, tables and charts held by me as true, which would allow me roughly calculate floating performance of my boat at my desk. They are the true or nearly true as they are based on Newton’s principals. I can only hope that something unexpected will happen – and I will exclaim – it cannot be so! - which would mean either I did a mistake in my calculations or I am making a scientific discovery. As to arguments about origin and similar subjects I hold as false any argument which contradicts natural laws mentioned above and held by me to be true or nearly true. It does not matter if such an argument comes from not knowing or understanding the above mentioned laws or just from a contempt or mental derangement. For instance, it is widely accepted that matter and energy do exist. I hold as true that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed in nature. But it is here isn’t it? You can deal with this fact or put your head in the sand and deny your own existence. “Now when it is known that only God can create and destroy matter” – Lord Kelvin. I reject any ideas, reasons which contradict laws of nature partially mentioned above and held by me to be true. I hold as true that “Within a finite period of time past, the earth must have been, and within a finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfit for the habitation of man as at present constituted, unless operations have been, or are to be performed, which are impossible under the laws to which the known operations going on at present in the material world are subject” – Lord Kelvin. I hold as true the Universal Tendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Energy, that everything has been dying, cooling down to all common death, I hold as true that the entropy of information does always increase as well, and I hold as true that we are here and we are life contrarily to death and natural laws, we are a result of supernatural. I don’t need any evidence or empirical data to know that pumping CO2 into atmosphere cannot trap heat at the earth. I hold as the truth that heat always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process (aka the 2nd beginning of the thermodynamics). It does not matter for me if 99.99% of debaters including scientists do not understand this simple sentence, because understanding of it requires years of training and practical experience, It does not matter for me that the most of the people do not know it, and many people will rather die ( as you can see on this forum) but will not accept this truth because it contradicts their reason, their beliefs, their empirical evidence. The thing is that for instance once I had to calculate radiant feedback in the process of burning fuel in a $60 million projected steam generator and I know the meaning of the equations and their relation to reality, and the books are still on my shelf. I hold them as true, and so you do because your airplane originates in these books. We do know nearly everything about aerodynamics, or physics, or turbine engines in what we use to make your plane, and we do not use what we don’t know, no matter what are reasons, ideas or evidence. I had to take a course named “turbine engines” and I worked with people designed such, without them holding the equations and charts as true you wouldn’t be flying. And you wouldn’t have electricity, like in the 15th century I think my truth is better. “I form no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” At least I have found it. Why don’t you accept it and stop your endless search?
I read the whole thread as carefully as I can, Inquisitor. Unfortunately, I still don't understand the main difference between the "natural philosophy" you favor and "natural science" as it's usually practiced today. Maybe there is some sort of language barrier we can try to tear down. Here's one point that might be important. In my words, Newton made specific observations and derived general principles from them. In yet some other of my own words, he examined empirical evidence and discovered a more general underlying principle. When reading your arguments, however, it seems to me that you distinguish between the observation of physical events and empirical evidence. What's the difference between the two? Smile.
This thread is a jumble of pointless jargon and silly jibe attempt....how about we simplify and get to the jist. The member in question is for some reason unable to accept agreed upon and verified data as truth and is therefore a pointless debate partner.
Thank you for your interest, Herby. It is very difficult to read what I write on the subject when your thoughts are burdened by what you think “usually practiced today.” But Newton’s language is even more difficult for people with today’s education. Once I posted a quote and found people couldn’t read. Newton calls it natural philosophy and he calls it experimental philosophy you call it natural science, and pages are written splitting hairs and semantics. You can call it as you wish, as long as you understand and distinguish methodology. Newton’s methodology: WHATEVER is not deducted from a phenomena has no place in… choose the name you like. I would think that a huge difference between the observation of physical events and empirical evidence would be self-evident, but it seems I am wrong. I would think that empirical evidence of existence of God suggested by Xn founders of empiricism has a huge difference from physical observation of God, but it seems I am wrong. Observation of physical events of appearance of new species out of the old one and creating mathematical equations (propositions - speaking Newton’s language) describing the appearance and making predictions of future appearances then confirmed by independent experiments/observations is Newton’s methodology. Observing whatever you decide to observe and making it to be empirical evidence of whatever you want it be an evidence of with no mathematical model making predictions of events you logically conclude from your evidence are happening in nature as a natural process is a theology. Another example is laws of genetics. Mendel was growing and combining generations of flowers and made records of change of certain features in generations, then these records were generalized by mathematical models, equations, Newton calls them propositions, accurately predicting changes in future generations with future experimental confirmation of accuracy. You have to observe phenomena, or as Einstein call it events, or I may say happenings. Then you may introduce an assumption of existence of an electron or inertia or photon – it does not matter what assumption you want to introduce and it does not matter if it physically exists or if it is true - it is up to courage of your genius - to make a theory mathematically describing happenings and allowing calculations of future happenings. Another thing is that you have to demonstrate happenings. Let say you claim that CO2 reflects heat back to the Earth no matter what laws of nature say. Why don’t you build a glass dome let’s say 2m thick 20m high 5 km in diameter fill it with 100% CO2 and let it rip on the North Pole and get a Nobel prize and a few $billions in profit from your patent? Let say you claim that CO2 reflects heat back to the Earth and you claim it does not contradict known laws of nature. Why don’t you calculate for me even roughly what would be a change in the average temperature readings of all weather stations if you change all Earth atmosphere for 100% CO2 provided that all other conditions stay the same?
No confrontation taken, or even noticed. I'm very used to hate filled religious zealots shouting, 'Kill him!! kill the infidel for blaspheming the Holy Name of Darwin!!' Your style is very gentle, though a bit scattered, if you don't mind a critique.. Well, i depart from your view, here. Without reason, there is no basis for rational thought. If all is dream, there is nothing empirical & no basis for any science or knowledge. I again disagree. Empirical evidence is JUST AS IMPORTANT in any kind of philosophy.. though you can have unseen, or unknown forces involved in the equation. Truth is truth, whether we know it or not. The stupidity & imperceptions of man have no bearing on empirical reality. You seem to be blurring the difference between 'truth' & 'belief'. People can be wrong in a great many of their beliefs, but Truth is True, whether we know it or not. Truth is indifferent to our ignorance or superstitions. It does not persuade with gentle, soothing tones, or hold to any PC sensitivities. It is hard, cold, & unrelenting. Beliefs are different. They can be soothing & persuading. They can be flavored with ideological undertones, & filled with imagination. But they do not correlate. Belief can sometimes be IN Truth, but belief NEVER changes truth. Well, it seems to me that you make the mistake of many in this generation, & no doubt times past. You equate 'truth' with 'belief'. You see no difference between them, & jumble them up in your mind so that they are all the same. You redefine empiricism to mean whatever you want it to mean, & see no difference between scientifically verifiable facts, & opinions or beliefs. But there is a difference, even if you don't see it or believe it. You imply that there is no empirical 'truth'. All is belief, dream, & subjective. That is NOT the result of the age of reason, or based on the concept of empirical reality, that has driven post reformation humanity into the 21st century. We could go back.. to mandated science, dream, illusion, & elitist rule, but that is a negative for humanity, & we will lose the abilities we have taken centuries to acquire. Without the ability to see a universe of Order & Natural Law, superstition rules, & elites manipulate facts & reason to fleece the working man, as they have always done. Reason is a great equalizer. We are ALL under empirical reality, & there are none who can take special dispensation to bully or intimidate others.
I am not recalling unseen, or unknown forces involved in any equation describing only seen happenings. I recall unseen, or unknown forces involved only in occultism and theology and… empiricism . All forces involved in my equations are strictly defined. They may be abstract but they are always strictly defined and known. It is the matter of the methodology. Definitions are pillars on which it stands. The absence of these strict definitions or even thinking that one may step away from them is the sure sign of a hoax. As a demonstration, you wouldn’t deny that you see that: all scientists arguing for or against climate change have no clue about the existing definition of climate. Both sides use reason based on rational thought. You can ask any believer/disbeliever in climate change and he/she will be totally lost, totally clueless. Not any will know about the necessity of definitions. But all have reason and rational thought. Do you see that? In my definitions the same words often have a totally different meaning than ones used by scientists, and in difference from science they have very strict usage. You cannot twist them according your reason or rational. If you can point a single exclusion to me I may agree with you. But so far your disagreement is based on your personal belief rather than on the observed realities. I deny you no reason no rational thought, I just demonstrate that they are not based on observed events and thus constitute your personal belief. I will try to get back with the rest later. Taking too much time off realities of life It has been a pleasure for me, too.
I find it interesting to see one of the most unreasonable members here creating threads to critique the reasoning power of others.
People with high intelligence always welcome and appreciate critique of their reason. It helps them to remove impurities of their reason and polish it like a diamond at abrasive material. People with low intelligence meeting any critics immediately desert to personal attacks and trolling. I feed trolls only out of kindness of my heart. They like to lick my hand with a glove on it. Apparently they cannot resist the taste and smell of latex, as they keep on coming and coming to have some more. Does not cost me anything.
Definitions can be useful, either to promote knowledge & understanding, or to obscure it. Abstraction is fine, as long as there is a clear line between the abstract & the empirical. Blurring that line does not help in any quest for understanding. Even falsehoods & lies can be 'rational', depending on the assumptions & the premises. So for me, 'rationality' is not the goal, but Truth. Having said that, Truth is rational. But you cannot have lies or half truths as a basis for truth. They will lead you astray, as the foundation is not on something solid, like truth, but is on the shifting sands of distortion & deception. If the basis of the discussion is not on facts, but opinions, there can be no rational conclusion about Truth'. That is the case with the AGW debate, imo. Opinions & beliefs are presented as Known Truth, & then built upon. But the premise has not been established, scientifically, just declared. It is not empirical. It is a belief. I see the same thing with the evolution debate. The premises are all assumed, with no evidence, so all the reasoning in the world will only be built on a flawed premise.. that of increasing complexity in the genetic structures, based on the false equivalency of observed horizontal variation. Without the premises of these 'theories' being established via sound scientific methodology, all we are left with is mandated truth.. declared science.. asserted beliefs.
It is not the matter of can be or cannot be. Absence of definitions = pseudoscience. The opposite of the abstract is physical, not empirical. Definitions may be abstract but they MUST describe physical processes. Examples: Mass Weight Work Disorder in T-cs. Inertia. They all can be substituted by symbols and represented as results of mathematical equations. Your problem is blurry Definitions or false definitions. Blurry definitions can be used in multiple ways in the same text. They bring different and contradicting results when operated with. Blurry definitions = pseudoscience. Example of a false (pseudo) definition is microevolution. It was made up when it became clear that NO speciation has ever been observed in all intensive experiments. Which for real science is the undiscussable proof that a theory is wrong. This definition is not made to operations with it. It is like making up a name or renamed what is defined totally differently in real science. Microevolution is not even a pseudoscience, it is a burb. (You see when a seasoned chemists reports that in his FRIENDLY conversations no biologist understands macroevolution he knows that then questions will be left only about microevolution and it will be clear that microevolution is nothing but a burb) Any absence of strict definitions, any of presence not operating or operating in different ways definitions, any presence of words hypothesis and/or evidence = pseudoscience.
