understanding and using correct terminology - Page 2

A shorter version of the "lighting hitting the monuments" thought experiment is "If something happened that science couldn't explain then science couldn't explain it, therefore science is an incomplete model of the universe".

I suppose we could start larding up our textbooks with lots of tautological caveats (Warning! If mathematics proves to be inconsistent then inconsistency will be an aspect of mathematics! Proceed at your own risk!) but I don't see the point.

Not sure why you picked these two examples...but it seems you may have just proved his point.

Who's talking about moving the camera? The point was that there is a gap in between frames and that we safely assume that nothing happened in between. The ID people/anti-science folks are arguing that perhaps aliens landed and erected a civilization in between those frames.

I don't know if your analogy works because evolution doesn't have thoughts or self-esteem to damage. If I had to worry about the emotional well-being of evolution then I suppose the sticker might be a concern.

A better analogy might be placing a sign in the classroom stating that all students make mistakes and having a court rule against it claiming that it is racist because the intent was to remind certain parties that black students are stupid. I can't get into the intent of the parties who wanted the sign. I can't get into the fact one or two weaker minded students might assign that statement a racial thought. I have to deal with the statement itself and there is nothing wrong with the statement that all students make mistakes.

There is nothing religious about stating that evolution is a theory.

Nick

It's not? Tell that to those legions of scientists working in the earth sciences and life and biological sciences - virtually all of science.

Let me ask you this, I'm genuinely curious: Do you think that evolution is more or less confirmed as a theory than the average theory in science? People in those fields would say that it's one of the best-supported theories there is. What in the world is your standard of evidence, and how much of the rest of science do you reject because of these high standards?

Could it be that the reason people "feel the need to protect it," as you put it, feel that need because it's under attack from political and religious forces? Do you really think that people would form organizations to promote it if it weren't under attack by conservative religious groups?

Brussel, shetline, addabox -- you've missed the point Adams is making, while demonstrating the point Adams is making.

Yes until those subsequently refined methods of testing occur they call the science theoretical. They don't call it a fact. If we were discussing particles for example and were discussing particles that are predicted to exist but that we have not yet devised an experiment to test for yet, we would call those particles hypothetical, we would not call them facts.

Come on adda. I'm not arguing against evolution but you can't sit there and say that if someone doesn't believe a gravitino is already a fact that they are a religious kook.

Nick

Bwahahahaha...soon I'll have them drinking from my beerhat!

Nick

Who is Adams?

You must have missed this link dmz posted upthread: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_d...ent_des_2.html

No, Adams is missing my point, and keeps misunderstanding what I mean. Can't seem to straighten the poor fellow out.

Were you talking about evolution?

The guy who does the Dilbert cartoon is writing about evolution? OK. And he's using the tried and true "I'm not really a creationist but I just think the "Darwinists" are dumb extremists" line. OK. Maybe I'm just sleepy today (I still don't understand the premise of this thread) but I don't get his point. He comes up with an utterly impossible hypothetical in order to prove how dumb those extremist Darwinists really are. OK.

Just read the whole thread. Can't stop thinking about crotch definitions and crotch reactions. The original question seems to elude me in the responses.

Better take a break - the favourite films thread is getting to me....

You really ought to read the whole series...before you start validating what he has written.

I disagree. The camera is naturalistic processes. There are intelligent design folks who argue will even argue that evolution is proof of design. The camera that cannot swing around is naturalism. Science stands on its own. You cannot discount an explantion simply because it suggests something outside of naturalism. You turn the camera around and show that it is indeed New York City instead of a set. If someone wants to claim that when a person left the room that they simply left a set with nothing beyond the door, then you take the camera past the door. There should be no fear of doing that.

But you don't just sit there and say "No dammit, we won't move this camera."

People who look into the multiverse as an explanation are on no better scientific ground than ID folks. Yet I won't call what they propose bad science because they are willing to swing the camera around and take a look. They still propose only naturalistic processes, but at least they attempt to explain what may not be observable. They propose a solution to the many tauntologies that do not explain why our universe appears to be so biofriendly. Simply saying it is biofriendly because we are here does nothing to explain or inform.

To say our universe is biofriendly because there may be an infinite number of other universes where it was not so still attempts to explain. We may NEVER be able to prove or test that explanation. However it still seeks explanation rather than just shutting a door and telling people that they are idiots for wondering why certain things exist as they do.

Nick

Should we say that every action and/or statement ought to be rejected or called "bad" regardless of its intrisic truth or "goodness" because the intent of the actor/speaker?

Then no one should be concerned with defending it mercilessly, nor claim that it is undisputable absolute truth.

I think Adams has 50-75% of a good point, the good part being that there's a lot of mutual miscommunication and misrepresentation of competing viewpoints. But in trying to show himself as being high-minded and above the fray, amused by the silly bickering down upon which he gazes, I think Adams overplays the similarities between the factions, and goes on to do a bit of misunderstanding and misrepresentation himself about who's saying what and why.

That's a nice analogy. We should change the subject of this thread to whether or not it's accurate, and then we could argue about that.

Ok. Now I'm on track (I think).


And is there anything that can compare to the religion of evolution?

I'm surprised at how many of us seem to claim that "inference" is a scientific tool.

The 'scientific" method which is claimed in this thread seems to lie more with a hypothetico-deductive model of truth (or truth-finding). That's to say:

1. I make a hypothesis.

2. I can deduce findings from what I observe (empiricism)

3. Inference has always been the domain of 'interpretation'.

If anyone believes that interpretation is a science, then perhaps that person might be called a 'hermeneutician'.

A hermeneutician is not limited to simple empiricism i.e. he does not just deduce facts about the world, as a result of the experiment.

My question: what does evolution rely on? Inference? or Deduction?

I agree with the point that evolution can be seen as a theory. Although following the philosopher's trail (along the lines of Popper), I'd find it very hard to conceive of evolution as robust enough to be a scientific theory at all. A hypothesis - yes. A religion - possibly. Truth? Some men's B version of the truth.

Wow! Testy. Just relax. Geez.


So you want to pick and choose which items to reject based on your preception of their intent.


You need to relax. It's just a friendly discussion. Let's try to keep it that way.

A man is found in an apartment who has apparently committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Next to his body is found a handwritten note in flowing script reading, I give up. God. Upon further investigation, this man has a passport, drivers license, and social security number, all issued to the name, God, with a birthdate of ?. Upon further investigation, this man has official records (fingerprints, dental, DNA, computer, signed documentation, etc.) in every record-keeping country, all identifying him as God. No one knows when or how these were created, and no issuer can be found in any country. No family can be found, and no one recalls knowing him personally or even seeing him previous to the discovery of his body. It rains for 40 days and 40 nights around the world. Not flooding rain, but depressing, dreary rain. As God is omnipotent, it is hypothesized that such a being could conceivably take human form and commit suicide. Science cannot prove or disprove this possibility.

Heres the question: should teachers be allowed to tell students about how God committed suicide by shooting himself in the head?
_________________

My point? Bringing religion into the classroom opens a can of worms. Don't be surprised if the result isn't what you intended.

I'm not playing any games at all. The reasons aren't really relevant, though you want them to be.

You began this thread with a call to "understanding and using correct terminology"...but you object when someone "uses correct terminology" with motives that offend or annoy you. Who cares what the motives are.

If you are so concerned about the "mislead ignorant students" issues then maybe the effort ought to be put into making those people less-ignorant. Removing the sticker doesn't do that.

I'm not sure I follow, but then being across the other side of the pond, I'm a bit slow on the uptake.

Should teachers be allowed to tell their students about how God committed suicide? With some doubt - why not? As long as teaching doesn't straddle into the delusional, such as the given example.

Not meaning to be provocative or anything...just trying to type anything to stop those two from arguing at each other mercilessly

No problem at all.

I agree.

Teaching students what...

- a theory is and isn't
- facts and inferences are and how they are different
- the scientific method is and isn't
- evidence is and shows (and what it doesn't)

Would all be great.

On interpersonal matters, absolutely.


Because brother, if you think the biggest fear in scientific understanding is a sticker on a book, then you haven't seen past the bullshit yet. Don't you get it? The sticker IS the bullshit. Don't defend or even worry about bullshit. The amount of time and money spent fighting that thing probably could have paid a university professor to do nothing but sit on that campus all day for the entire school year and do nothing but discuss evolution for about five solid years.

Instead of fighting the sticker someone should have just donated they money to hire the professor and that would have a) cut through the bullshit and b) convinced a hell of a lot more students than the worrisome few who would be lead totally off base by ... a sticker.

This is, totally off-topic, why I go totally ape-shit over the whole "gotcha" and intent politics of the left. There are issues I want addressed that the Republican party is not addressing. If the left were dealing with ideals and actions they would probably move forward. Instead they are dealing with intent and it sucks and wastes time. They would get a lot further with say, universal health care if they just dealt with ideals and actions. Instead it is like they are stuck in an intent loop. "I'll prove you don't want universal health care by finding the gotcha that shows you really are a rich, white male bastard that hates his fellow humans." Screw that, run the numbers and let's see. Same for drug legalization, civil unions for lots of folks, fair trade, and about five other pet issues for me.

/rant off


Exactly. So you, as a smart person should not let your time be spent believing that a sticker will do harm. Instead your efforts should be spent advocating for what you want instead of arguing the intent or effectiveness of what dumb people want. You have to let the idiots live their lives too. If someone want to claim God exists because a sticker in a book says evolution is a theory, then let him. Instead spend your time and energy insuring that the kid next to him has the financial means to leave the small town and go to college.

You cannot control the efforts, energies and intentions of all people. You can only make sure the efforts, energies and intentions of your own are effective.

Nick

Well put Nick.

...says the man who wants people to be able to get away with these disclaimer stickers. I'd like to see what would happen to your "Well put Nick" if someone were trying to have disclaimer stickers placed in school books like this:

Where's the harm in that? Let's use this in all of our public schools! As long as you'll support my sticker, and put an equivalent version of your sticker in all science text books, not just those which discuss evolution, I'll support your stickers too. Deal?

If you take Nick's argument all the way, and believe there's no good reason to fight against the stickers, then you'd also have to agree that there's no good reason to fight for the stickers either.


I'll now quietly note that Nick never responded to my question about teachers putting completely true stickers or badges selectively on individual students.

I have no problem with that at all. It is a perfectly truthful statement. I'm not afraid of those.

( I thought we were talking about evolution...not sure how God got in here...maybe a strawman is roaming around. )

I don't care of people "get away" with the stickers or don't. My point was that getting away from the actual words to the intent of the people is just utter nonsense.


Sounds like a deal to me. Anyone who believes God is all powerful shouldn't be too concerned about a sticker.


There isn't a good reason for the stickers. I called them bullshit. My main point in bringing it up is to show how proving how evolution might be falsifiable is not a religious attack, but is good science.


I'll loudly note that it wasn't a comparible analogy because evolution has no self-image concerns. People would shy away from the stickers you suggest for no other reason than it might harm the child mentally to be labeled a certain way, even if the label is truthful. Evolution has nothing comparible. Evolution does not have a self-image or feelings to hurt.

Nick