Origins of life bounce between creation, evolution at Friday debate
Jason Spaceman
------------------------------------
The amoeba meets God's hand Friday as a scientist and a creationist debate over the
origins of mankind.
The fund-raiser for the Smith-Cotton High School Science Club will feature LaRoy
Brandt, head of the science department at State Fair Community College. He will
argue in favor of evolution versus biblical creationist Thompson Willis, a Kansas
City resident and member of Creation Science Association of Mid-America.
The discussion, with the theme "science and the origin and diversification of life,"
has been advertised throughout Sedalia and surrounding communities.
-----------------------------------
Read it at http://www.sedaliademocrat.com/News/286713380167896.htm
J. Spaceman
Mike Dworetsky
"Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:c632q3$7kd83$1...@ID-219258.news.uni-berlin.de...
If anyone can contact LaRoy Brandt, it might be worth letting him
(?gender??) know about t.o if he doesn't already. Point to the existing
Evo/Cre transcripts for examples of what has gone before.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Tarver Engineering
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c635tp$dja$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> If anyone can contact LaRoy Brandt, it might be worth letting him
> (?gender??) know about t.o if he doesn't already. Point to the existing
> Evo/Cre transcripts for examples of what has gone before.
TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt anyone
outside your little flame war would be interested. After all, reguritating
the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be removed from the science
program at the school.
Matchstick
> TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt anyone
> outside your little flame war would be interested. After all, reguritating
> the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be removed from the science
> program at the school.
I'm impressed... you've managed to keep a straight face so far while
posting this stuff.
A tip for next time you're trolling though, you'll tend to get more
responses if you try presenting some "evidence" to back up your
"arguments" even if it's patently false (aka the Ed Conrad technique)
--
Contact Address matchstick a t oofg d o t com
"The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic."
Tarver Engineering
"Matchstick" <match...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aef653b9...@news.individual.de...
> In article <FZedncQjV7P...@sti.net>, jta...@sti.net says...
>
> > TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt anyone
> > outside your little flame war would be interested. After all,
reguritating
> > the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be removed from the
science
> > program at the school.
>
> I'm impressed... you've managed to keep a straight face so far while
> posting this stuff.
Go into a classroom and see if you don't see that old "chain of life to man"
poster there. That poster alone is enough evidence to have the falsed
science of Darwinists bannished.
> A tip for next time you're trolling though, you'll tend to get more
> responses if you try presenting some "evidence" to back up your
> "arguments" even if it's patently false (aka the Ed Conrad technique)
I have found that most of the trolls in these newsgroups will dish back
nothing and there is no need for me to do any work until some competent
person happens along. It seems TO's biologists have abandoned the group and
that is a shame. At least in those days there was more than mindless
religion here.
Mekkala
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Sometimes I wonder if you creationists realize how ignorant you look to
the rest of the world. You're like flat-earthers.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
Mekkala
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
>
Yes, we all know "evolutionism" is a religion.
Tarver Engineering
"Mekkala" <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D185D3...@199.45.49.11...
> On Tue 20 Apr 2004 09:55:19a, "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net>
> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
> up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
>
> >
> > "Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:c635tp$dja$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >
> >>
> >> If anyone can contact LaRoy Brandt, it might be worth letting him
> >> (?gender??) know about t.o if he doesn't already. Point to the
> >> existing Evo/Cre transcripts for examples of what has gone before.
> >
> > TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt anyone
> > outside your little flame war would be interested. After all,
> > reguritating the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be
> > removed from the science program at the school.
>
> Sometimes I wonder if you creationists realize how ignorant you look to
> the rest of the world. You're like flat-earthers.
When I am before the rest of the world I have no problem being the majority.
How is that human psycosis thing working out for you, Mekkala.
Tarver Engineering
Evolution is the athiest religion and that makes it very difficult for the
education system to adjust to scientific knowledge. Evolution is in trouble
as science and the religous are aware of that problem.
Dale
news:FZedncQjV7P...@sti.net...
What is it with engineers not understanding evolution? P.S. - For a good
time, do a google on "tarver engineering".
Tarver Engineering
Matchstick
> I have found that most of the trolls in these newsgroups will dish back
> nothing and there is no need for me to do any work until some competent
> person happens along. It seems TO's biologists have abandoned the group and
> that is a shame. At least in those days there was more than mindless
> religion here.
BOOOO!!!!
What's the fun of playing with a Creationist Trolls if you can't even be
bothered to post any hilariously stupid evidence to keep us (TINU)
amused.
No regurgipost from the ICR or Ken Hovind, not even a blatenty fake/out-
of-context quotation from Richard Dawkins to hold our interest.
You really must try harder in future.
3/10
Lee Oswald Ving
>
> "Matchstick" <match...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1aef653b9...@news.individual.de...
>> In article <FZedncQjV7P...@sti.net>, jta...@sti.net says...
>>
>> > TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt
>> > anyone outside your little flame war would be interested. After
>> > all,
> reguritating
>> > the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be removed from
>> > the
> science
>> > program at the school.
>>
>> I'm impressed... you've managed to keep a straight face so far while
>> posting this stuff.
>
> Go into a classroom and see if you don't see that old "chain of life
> to man" poster there. That poster alone is enough evidence to have
> the falsed science of Darwinists bannished.
>
>> A tip for next time you're trolling though, you'll tend to get more
>> responses if you try presenting some "evidence" to back up your
>> "arguments" even if it's patently false (aka the Ed Conrad technique)
>
> I have found that most of the trolls in these newsgroups will dish
> back nothing and there is no need for me to do any work until some
> competent person happens along.
That is, you really want to run your mouth a lot, but do not want to be
bothered by little things like intellectual integrity.
Take it elsewhere. No one is impressed here.
<snip>
Zamboni
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:cbydnWdix9k...@sti.net...
>
>
> Evolution is the athiest religion and that makes it very difficult for the
> education system to adjust to scientific knowledge. Evolution is in
trouble
> as science and the religous are aware of that problem.
>
--
Zamboni
Zamboni
What does driving a train have to do with science?
Richard Forrest
Could you please give me some examples of how evolution is in trouble
as science? As a working palaeontologist, I am unaware of any
scientific dispute over the question of whether or not evolution
occured. Please bear in mind that creationist tracts are considered by
almost all scientists as a joke.
Also, if evolution is an atheist religion, why to the majority of the
world's Christians, let alone adherents to other religions, have no
problem in accepting it as sound science?
RF
Richard Forrest
Could you please give me some examples of how evolution is in trouble
Richard S. Crawford
Because in spite of all of their pretentions toward praying, worship,
devotion, sacrifice, love, and so on, they are secretly atheists working
to destroy True Christianity.
Duh.
tim gueguen
Don't forget to add splaps.
tim gueguen 101867
Pithecanthropus Erectus
--
"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are
those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing
science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are
universally denominated rude and barbarous. The patronage which Britain
has shown to Arts, Science and Literature has given her a better
established and lasting rank in the world than she ever acquired by her
arms."
Thomas Paine
Eros
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:c63qd9$s...@library2.airnews.net...
> >
> >>"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
> >>news:FZedncQjV7P...@sti.net...
> >>
> >>>"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:c635tp$dja$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If anyone can contact LaRoy Brandt, it might be worth letting him
> >>>>(?gender??) know about t.o if he doesn't already. Point to the
> >
> > existing
> >
> >>>>Evo/Cre transcripts for examples of what has gone before.
> >>>
> >>>TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt anyone
> >>>outside your little flame war would be interested. After all,
> >
> > reguritating
> >
> >>>the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be removed from the
> >
> > science
> >
> >>>program at the school.
> >>
> >>What is it with engineers not understanding evolution?
This may help;-
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr0dud.htm
"An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement", by John W. Patterson,
published in Proceedings of the Iowa Acadamy of Science 89(2):55-58,
1982, is based on a presentation given at the Iowa Acadamy of Science
in 1981.
An excerpt:-
"This paper attempts to expose the nature of the creationist movement,
the role that professional engineers have played in its leadership,
and the level of scientific incompetence (particularly in
thermodynamics) that these creationist engineers have exhibited both
in public speaking and in print."
> > Science.
> >
> >
> Ancillary question - Why do engineers think they are scientists?
>
>
>
> --
> "The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are
> those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing
> science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are
> universally denominated rude and barbarous. The patronage which Britain
> has shown to Arts, Science and Literature has given her a better
> established and lasting rank in the world than she ever acquired by her
> arms."
>
> Thomas Paine
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Indeed, I have since found that engineering educators, senior
engineers, and registered professional engineers are perhaps the most
prominent leaders of the creationist movement. As an engineering
professor and a registered engineer myself, I felt it would be
professionally irresponsible to let this travesty continue without
comment." -- An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement, by John W.
Patterson, published in Proceedings of the Iowa Acadamy of Science
89(2):55-58, 1982, is based on a presentation given at the Iowa
Acadamy of Science in 1981.
John Vreeland
> > "Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:c63qd9$s...@library2.airnews.net...
> >
> >>"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
> >>news:FZedncQjV7P...@sti.net...
> >>
> >>>"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:c635tp$dja$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If anyone can contact LaRoy Brandt, it might be worth letting him
> >>>>(?gender??) know about t.o if he doesn't already. Point to the
> >
> > existing
> >
> >>>>Evo/Cre transcripts for examples of what has gone before.
> >>>
> >>>TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt anyone
> >>>outside your little flame war would be interested. After all,
> >
> > reguritating
> >
> >>>the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be removed from the
> >
> > science
> >
> >>>program at the school.
> >>
> >>What is it with engineers not understanding evolution?
> >
> >
> > Science.
> >
> >
> Ancillary question - Why do engineers think they are scientists?
Many of them are. I have been. If by "science" you mean the process.
Biggest problem I see is the lack of understanding of the 2LoT,
especially concerning the properties of self-organization. Many
engineering programs do not require thermodynamics (I took it anyway)
and self-organization is counter-intuitive...until you understand it.
Most people who accept common descent do not understand natural
selection. Engineers are smart enough to question it, and reject it
if they do not find anything sensible.
John Vreeland
JPG
<tuib...@spam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> "Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
>> news:c63qd9$s...@library2.airnews.net...
>>
>>>"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
>>>news:FZedncQjV7P...@sti.net...
>>>
>>>>"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:c635tp$dja$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If anyone can contact LaRoy Brandt, it might be worth letting him
>>>>>(?gender??) know about t.o if he doesn't already. Point to the
>>
>> existing
>>
>>>>>Evo/Cre transcripts for examples of what has gone before.
>>>>
>>>>TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt anyone
>>>>outside your little flame war would be interested. After all,
>>
>> reguritating
>>
>>>>the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be removed from the
>>
>> science
>>
>>>>program at the school.
>>>
>>>What is it with engineers not understanding evolution?
I happen to be an engineer who started off as a scientist.
As someone who has to apply science to make things happen I am amazed that
anyone who has to be so thoroughly immersed in the real world as an engineer can
contemplate anything outside of it, let alone believe in it.
One can only think of the oft-quoted comment that creationists are quite happy
to use the fruits of science, or even in this case work with them, but at the
same time deny one of its most robust theories.
Delusion or dishonesty? To be generous one would assume the former.
JPG
maff
> > "Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:c63qd9$s...@library2.airnews.net...
> >
> >>"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
> >>news:FZedncQjV7P...@sti.net...
> >>
> >>>"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:c635tp$dja$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If anyone can contact LaRoy Brandt, it might be worth letting him
> >>>>(?gender??) know about t.o if he doesn't already. Point to the
> >
> > existing
> >
> >>>>Evo/Cre transcripts for examples of what has gone before.
> >>>
> >>>TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt anyone
> >>>outside your little flame war would be interested. After all,
> >
> > reguritating
> >
> >>>the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be removed from the
> >
> > science
> >
> >>>program at the school.
> >>
> >>What is it with engineers not understanding evolution?
> >
> >
> > Science.
> >
> >
> Ancillary question - Why do engineers think they are scientists?
Salem hypothesis
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Salem%20hypothesis&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Ann
a professional (expert:) intervention raises the entertainment value of
any discussion, makes it amusing and more lively. Moreover, the questions
you pose touch on the very basis of the scientific method: scholastic
wording coupled with its major axiom/assumption -- the objective
observation, testing and verification of one and only independent reality
outside.
{ The modern versions and refinements of the assumption are disguised under
various forms, like (perhaps your favourite:) the so called "uniformity of
Nature".
Just a reminder, the Aristotelian assumption was challenged by Einstein
when it turned out that 'absolute' space-time is an illusion of our
imperfect eyesight, "there was no force of gravity but a byproduct of
the warping of space-time", 'space' (and maybe the One Truth) was
"generally relative" depending on the point of view and so was 'time',
which turned out to slow down as we move--the faster we travel the
longer we live, go figure. A more recent blow to the 'objective' axiom
was inflicted by social sciences and quantum mechanics experiments,
which turned out to be anything but 'independent' of the researcher and
his goal, I wonder what if this independence turns out impossible, or
real only in our mind.
Einstein shattered the foundations of science and that is why he seems not
to be liked by his colleagues (though respected, praised and so on:). His
theory was incompatible with Newton's mechanics of the "absolute space"
(i.e. made him a laughable special case:) and what do we read in our
physics textbooks - Newton and his "mysterious force". Einstein's
relativity (i.e. "There is no force!":) is postponed for high-school and
university, because you see it were very complex. The reason though is
different, it 'merely' undermines the roots of the scientific method,
makes also the other sciences a very special case to reality. }
The 'objective' illusion comes from the most famous "lover of sights"
Aristotle and indeed (as you perhaps feel:) at least two major religions
fell into his trap (went out of their minds). And proclaimed the word
'God' an independent (of our mind), external entity, just as the Godfather
of Sciences' names (Aristotle) wanted them to. I mean, that was the
cunning point of his substitute word 'Nature' (we are part of Nature, but
when we explore, research, experiment, dissect Nature we tend to
concentrate on outside). Later on other deep thinkers ashamed of the word
'God' created additional words 'worth' worshipping and preaching like
'Evolution', 'Evolutionary Process' or anything else that sounds beautiful
(e.g. Supreme Reasoning Power) and could fill the void and give us the
'purpose' of our existence.
Basically that was the reason why eventually religion lost the rhetoric
battle with science for the hearts and minds of the gullible public
opinion and replaced it in our schools as the (next in a row) universal
dogma. And that is also what gives you the 'righteous' feeling of inner
strength and confidence whenever you find yourself arguing with a
'clergymen'. Because without noticing they were tricked into accepting
your articles of faith--the scientific method--so the rest is easy, you
can be almost sure you would silence them with a couple of precise
remarks.
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Richard Forrest wrote:
>> Tarver Engineering wrote
>>> Mekkala wrote
>>>> On Tue 20 Apr 2004 Tarver Engineering kicked back with a beer,
>>>> ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell
>>>> asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
>>>>> Matchstick wrote:
>>>>>> jta...@sti.net says:
You see the trick, it's already in the question for how do you define
"sound science"? You think it a trivial matter? You'd probably give me
the Aristotelian definition (that was slightly refined through the
centuries) and then there won't be any "trouble". While originally
science had a different meaning back then in classic Greece - for Plato
it meant philosophy, a quest, an honest inquiry. Later his student
Aristotle redefined (narrowed) the definition to an objective,
"empirical" (his word also) exploration of independent Nature outside.
We were made to accept the reality of the word 'objective' with the
definition as if it were possible for sure (and beyond any doubt:
scholastic language of 100% certainty being his other innovation later
embraced by religion and scientific textbooks). Now to your question.
The "trouble of the evolution" as a quest for the truth is that the main
paradoxes still remain unresolved. It might indeed have given us elegant
descriptions (words:) in terms of teensy-weeny 'genes' (and their
invisible struggle for fittest survival), huge round numbers ("millions"
mostly, and what a remarkable memory by your colleagues:), purely random
mutations (although "God doesn't play dice" for Einstein:), the abstract
yet Almighty Evolutionary Process and so on. Though we are still at square
one of Creation, we still know nothing.
And the verification test still fails, we cannot make a flea but claim to
know the Beginning (from common ancestor, gases or whatever:). And the
same with physicists and their "black holes", "theories of everything" and
"superstrings". And what is this infinitesimal singleton with yet infinite
mass that exploded in the Big Bang to give birth to 'time' and 'space'? A
word, for sure ("In the beginning was the Word"), but what else. And how
would 'time' and 'space' collapse back into it, and what was the
millisecond before the Big Bang?
Void, Infinitesimal Emptiness and Nothingness, the nucleus of the
Vacuum?
And what came first, aren't you curious, The chicken or the egg? I do
not care if some use the same word for them (one "species"), to me an
egg and a chicken are two different things, they look and feel
differently, and also taste differently. Thus, I am not asking how the
species evolved, adapted and mutated to finally produce the species
'chicken', my question is much simpler: how the 'baby-things' mutated
to an egg, and the 'adult-animals' to a chicken and what mutated first?
What came first on the Evolutionary arrow of time, the chicken or the
egg?
There must have been a Beginning, both of them must have had one,
logical isn't it. It is this discrete (as opposed to smoothly
continuous:) event of the first mutation I am talking about, can you
imagine it?
> As a working palaeontologist,
you probably belive in the Number of the Beast, the larger and rounder
it is the more pleasure you derive and the more silenced (in awe:) your
spiritual opponents become.
THOUSANDS - Hurrah, and up it rises,
MILLIONS - Hurrah, and up it rises,
BILLIONS - Hurrah, and up it rises, (early in the morning:)
Whereas it is just an abstract number it exists not in Nature but in
the mental universe of mathematics. In Nature 'addition' is
meaningless, there aren't even two uniformly identical "members" or
"elements" (apart from the words and numbers in our head and books:)
that could be counted (or manipulated algebraically:).
Also "as a working paleontologist, you are aware" of the necessary
assumptions made along the way to obtaining the huge dating numbers,
the credulous public however, is not. And that is not entirely honest,
my whole point can be summarised by this: professional 'experts' should
treat the 'ignorant' masses with respect. That is, stop the
inspirational usage (in textbooks, interviews) of scholastic rhetoric
(i.e. making a theory look like a sure fact) and absolute certainty,
allow instead for doubt, uncertainty, alternatives and spell out
explicitly the assumptions of the THEORY.
{As it is done in specialised journals, i.e. treating the audience as
experts. If time or space of 'interview' is short to explain those
essential 'details' then better say nothing instead of conveying the
wrong impression of fixed certainty.}
> As a working palaeontologist, I am unaware of any scientific dispute
> over the question of whether or not evolution occured. Please bear in
> mind that creationist tracts are considered by almost all scientists as
> a joke.
Perhaps, though as you've seen the scale of the joke is much wider:
"almost all skeptics consider" any word "a joke".
> Also, if evolution is an atheist religion, why to the majority of the
> world's Christians, let alone adherents to other religions, have no
> problem in accepting it as sound science?
You find it surprising? We've all "accepted it" because we were told
and inspired to do so. It has become like the modern State religion (to
borrow from Chris a term I saw last week in sci.skeptic) and we all
read the same Scriptures, same Textbook, we all share One School and
Classroom, One News media, One Television, One Evolutionary
'Documentary' (computer graphics in bright colours and astonishingly
smooth transformations, the flow of millions of years as a gradual,
continuous transition, almost as real:). Add to that that all those
sources sell 'extrovert' science (as opposed to introvert "know
thyself") as the only legitimate method of inquiry and the evolutionary
dogma is complete--"nothing can ever remove it from its firm base,
nothing but evolution".
With passage of time, as our mind and understanding evolve it may
eventually turn out wrong (or just a special case when looked upon from
another perspective), which is the major lesson from the history of
science; similar has been the fate of any other scientific theory so
far (Galileo's Sun at the centre of the Universe, Kepler, Newton, ...
you name it; perhaps excluding only some mathematical theorems but I
revealed to you the whereabouts of their 'real' domain--not in Nature
outside:). Which should make us more cautious when faced with
scholastic assertions and claims of absolute truth or knowledge.
And who said that one prevailing dogma at a time was the best
(scientific) path to 'knowledge' and 'truth' (let alone wisdom or
happiness:)? Why should there be just one fittest theory, only one
surviving dogma at a time, what happened with tolerance, peaceful
coexistence of "bio-diversity"? Who needs all children to be
indoctrinated and then examined (i.e. make them learn by heart and
parrot by rote), who needs them to think alike? Let there be more
variety of parallel universes and points of view, here is an original
example:
Evolution is the law of policies: Darwin said it, Socrates endorsed
it, Cuvier proved it and established it for all time in his paper on
"The Survival of the Fittest." These are illustrious names, this is
a mighty doctrine: nothing can ever remove it from its firm base,
nothing dissolve it, but evolution.
Mark Twain
Vic Sagerquist
>
>"Mekkala" <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns94D185FC...@199.45.49.11...
..
>>
>> Yes, we all know "evolutionism" is a religion.
>
>Evolution is the athiest religion
You mean "atheist", right?
>and that makes it very difficult for
>the education system to adjust to scientific knowledge.
Please explain what is worshipped in this atheist religion.
>Evolution is in
>trouble as science and the religous are aware of that problem.
Cite please.
Did you make this up? Are you lying?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
______________
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day.
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
--Timothy Jones
Hank
Re: "TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians"...
Okay, I believe you. Now ... which one are you? :-)
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
Hank
Okay, have it your way - What is it with engineers not understanding science?
Hank
Unfortunately, many engineering schools do a pretty poor job of teaching the
basics of the scientific method. Either that or many engineers do a poor job of
learning it. But an engineer who claims that he knows more about evolution than
a biologist? That's either misplaced arrogance or outright lunacy.
Gary Bohn
"Ann" <ao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040421...@cicero.local...
> Hi Richard,
>
> a professional (expert:) intervention raises the entertainment value of
> any discussion, makes it amusing and more lively. Moreover, the questions
> you pose touch on the very basis of the scientific method: scholastic
> wording coupled with its major axiom/assumption -- the objective
> observation, testing and verification of one and only independent reality
> outside.
>
> { The modern versions and refinements of the assumption are disguised
under
> various forms, like (perhaps your favourite:) the so called "uniformity of
> Nature".
>
> Just a reminder, the Aristotelian assumption was challenged by Einstein
> when it turned out that 'absolute' space-time is an illusion of our
> imperfect eyesight, "there was no force of gravity but a byproduct of
> the warping of space-time", 'space' (and maybe the One Truth) was
> "generally relative" depending on the point of view and so was 'time',
> which turned out to slow down as we move--the faster we travel the
> longer we live, go figure. A more recent blow to the 'objective' axiom
> was inflicted by social sciences and quantum mechanics experiments,
> which turned out to be anything but 'independent' of the researcher and
> his goal, I wonder what if this independence turns out impossible, or
> real only in our mind.
>
What happens if we are all just a figment of some great being's thoughts?
Who are you, Descartes?
If I take a red hot poker and stick it into your eye you will feel pain. If
I stick it into my neighbours eye, he will feel pain. If I stick it into the
local Lutheran Minister's eye, he will feel pain. That is reality! That can
be tested. Predictions can be made.
The theorems of evolution are of the same reality.
> Einstein shattered the foundations of science and that is why he seems not
> to be liked by his colleagues (though respected, praised and so on:). His
> theory was incompatible with Newton's mechanics of the "absolute space"
> (i.e. made him a laughable special case:) and what do we read in our
> physics textbooks - Newton and his "mysterious force". Einstein's
> relativity (i.e. "There is no force!":) is postponed for high-school and
> university, because you see it were very complex. The reason though is
> different, it 'merely' undermines the roots of the scientific method,
> makes also the other sciences a very special case to reality. }
This is because in practical terms we can use Newton's physics at a lower
level of math. It is used every day in engineering, carpentry, sports.... It
applies to our common reality.
>
> The 'objective' illusion comes from the most famous "lover of sights"
> Aristotle and indeed (as you perhaps feel:) at least two major religions
> fell into his trap (went out of their minds). And proclaimed the word
> 'God' an independent (of our mind), external entity, just as the Godfather
> of Sciences' names (Aristotle) wanted them to. I mean, that was the
> cunning point of his substitute word 'Nature' (we are part of Nature, but
> when we explore, research, experiment, dissect Nature we tend to
> concentrate on outside). Later on other deep thinkers ashamed of the word
> 'God' created additional words 'worth' worshipping and preaching like
> 'Evolution', 'Evolutionary Process' or anything else that sounds beautiful
> (e.g. Supreme Reasoning Power) and could fill the void and give us the
> 'purpose' of our existence.
Exactly why would someone want to worship a word? Why would a word give us
purpose?
Each of us defines her own purpose, we don't need to get it from some word.
If you need to feel purpose and are looking to some word to get it I suggest
you visit a psychologist.
>
> Basically that was the reason why eventually religion lost the rhetoric
> battle with science for the hearts and minds of the gullible public
Any battle religion lost ,and as far as I know it's not a battle, was
because of a lack of hard evidence.
Why is the definition of the word science important to this question?
What is important is; what methods do we find most helpful in understanding
this universe. So far none better than the scientific method has been
developed.We've already tried religion and philosophy but they did not
increase our understanding of the physical world so we developed empirisim.
> centuries) and then there won't be any "trouble". While originally
> science had a different meaning back then in classic Greece - for Plato
> it meant philosophy, a quest, an honest inquiry. Later his student
> Aristotle redefined (narrowed) the definition to an objective,
If you are so sure that objectivity does not exist then please retreat back
into your subjective reality and stop trying to force it on the rest of us.
> "empirical" (his word also) exploration of independent Nature outside.
Empiricism was developed because Rationalism was unable to answer the
questions we had about our physical world.
> We were made to accept the reality of the word 'objective' with the
> definition as if it were possible for sure (and beyond any doubt:
> scholastic language of 100% certainty being his other innovation later
> embraced by religion and scientific textbooks). Now to your question.
>
> The "trouble of the evolution" as a quest for the truth is that the main
> paradoxes still remain unresolved. It might indeed have given us elegant
> descriptions (words:) in terms of teensy-weeny 'genes' (and their
> invisible struggle for fittest survival), huge round numbers ("millions"
> mostly, and what a remarkable memory by your colleagues:), purely random
> mutations (although "God doesn't play dice" for Einstein:), the abstract
> yet Almighty Evolutionary Process and so on. Though we are still at square
> one of Creation, we still know nothing.
You may know nothing, but science has revealed enormous amounts of
information we wouldn't have had otherwise. We base technology, medicine,
social science, (at a minimum) on what science in general and evolution
specifically has shown us.
>
> And the verification test still fails, we cannot make a flea but claim to
> know the Beginning (from common ancestor, gases or whatever:). And the
> same with physicists and their "black holes", "theories of everything" and
> "superstrings". And what is this infinitesimal singleton with yet infinite
> mass that exploded in the Big Bang to give birth to 'time' and 'space'? A
> word, for sure ("In the beginning was the Word"), but what else. And how
> would 'time' and 'space' collapse back into it, and what was the
> millisecond before the Big Bang?
>
No we can't see singularities, but we can make predictions of the effects
they will have on other objects and look for those effects. We have found
these effects big time, including but not limited to occlusion of stars,
orbits of stars, material being pulled from stars, X-rays, nut case YECs and
lots more.
I'm no scientist but even I've heard of this.
By the way, I doubt that Einstein was talking about evolutionary mutations.
Man do I have a headache!
--
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
Gary Bohn
Richard Forrest
>
> a professional (expert:) intervention raises the entertainment value of
> any discussion, makes it amusing and more lively. Moreover, the questions
> you pose touch on the very basis of the scientific method: scholastic
> wording coupled with its major axiom/assumption -- the objective
> observation, testing and verification of one and only independent reality
> outside.
>
My, you do like to use a lot of long words, don't you?
Please get to the point!
> { The modern versions and refinements of the assumption are disguised under
> various forms, like (perhaps your favourite:) the so called "uniformity of
> Nature".
>
> Just a reminder, the Aristotelian assumption was challenged by Einstein
> when it turned out that 'absolute' space-time is an illusion of our
> imperfect eyesight, "there was no force of gravity but a byproduct of
> the warping of space-time", 'space' (and maybe the One Truth) was
> "generally relative" depending on the point of view and so was 'time',
> which turned out to slow down as we move--the faster we travel the
> longer we live, go figure. A more recent blow to the 'objective' axiom
> was inflicted by social sciences and quantum mechanics experiments,
> which turned out to be anything but 'independent' of the researcher and
> his goal, I wonder what if this independence turns out impossible, or
> real only in our mind.
>
Your point being?
So your argument boils down to the statement that the scientific
method is based on faith.
It isn't. It's based on pragamtism.
Science assumes that there is a naturalistic explanation for what we
observe. As scientists we approach problems definable by science with
that basic assumption. If we didn't, there'd be no point in doing any
sort of research on anything. The reason why we stick to that
assumption is not that it is an article of faith, but that it leads to
results. Which is why I can sit at my keyboard and type this.
Where does the faith come in?
I wasn't asking anyone to define 'sound science'. I was asking for
evidence of how evolution is in trouble as science.
> You think it a trivial matter? You'd probably give me
> the Aristotelian definition (that was slightly refined through the
> centuries) and then there won't be any "trouble".
See above. I didn't.
> While originally
> science had a different meaning back then in classic Greece - for Plato
> it meant philosophy, a quest, an honest inquiry. Later his student
> Aristotle redefined (narrowed) the definition to an objective,
> "empirical" (his word also) exploration of independent Nature outside.
> We were made to accept the reality of the word 'objective' with the
> definition as if it were possible for sure (and beyond any doubt:
> scholastic language of 100% certainty being his other innovation later
> embraced by religion and scientific textbooks). Now to your question.
>
Are you suggesting that scientists are not aware of the difference
between subjective and objective phenomena?
> The "trouble of the evolution" as a quest for the truth is that the main
> paradoxes still remain unresolved.
What 'main paradoxes'?
> It might indeed have given us elegant
> descriptions (words:) in terms of teensy-weeny 'genes' (and their
> invisible struggle for fittest survival), huge round numbers ("millions"
> mostly, and what a remarkable memory by your colleagues:), purely random
> mutations (although "God doesn't play dice" for Einstein:)
Why bring in Einstein? Is this argument from authority?
Not only is God playing dice with the universe, He's using loaded
dice. (Ian Stewart)
or
Not only does God play dice, but He throws them where we cannot see
them. (Richard Feyman)
> , the abstract
> yet Almighty Evolutionary Process
What is 'abstract' about the evolutionary process? You're preaching.
> and so on. Though we are still at square
> one of Creation, we still know nothing.
>
So we have learned nothing about the evolution?
> And the verification test still fails, we cannot make a flea
Though we a pretty damn close to making a virus.
Why do we need to make a flea to verify that evolution has occured?
> but claim to
> know the Beginning (from common ancestor, gases or whatever:).
We do? I know of no scientist who claims to 'know the Beginning'
(whatever that means.)
> And the
> same with physicists and their "black holes", "theories of everything" and
> "superstrings". And what is this infinitesimal singleton with yet infinite
> mass that exploded in the Big Bang to give birth to 'time' and 'space'? A
> word, for sure ("In the beginning was the Word"), but what else. And how
> would 'time' and 'space' collapse back into it, and what was the
> millisecond before the Big Bang?
>
Your point being? I thought we were addressing the limitations of
evolutionary theory.
> Void, Infinitesimal Emptiness and Nothingness, the nucleus of the
> Vacuum?
>
I suggest you address that question to a physicist. They have a wealth
of theories. It may even be possible to devise a test for some of
them. Who knows?
> And what came first, aren't you curious, The chicken or the egg? I do
> not care if some use the same word for them (one "species"), to me an
> egg and a chicken are two different things, they look and feel
> differently, and also taste differently. Thus, I am not asking how the
> species evolved, adapted and mutated to finally produce the species
> 'chicken', my question is much simpler: how the 'baby-things' mutated
> to an egg, and the 'adult-animals' to a chicken and what mutated first?
> What came first on the Evolutionary arrow of time, the chicken or the
> egg?
>
What the hell is the point of this? What has mutation to do with the
development of the chicken embryo? Why is this relevant?
> There must have been a Beginning, both of them must have had one,
> logical isn't it. It is this discrete (as opposed to smoothly
> continuous:) event of the first mutation I am talking about, can you
> imagine it?
What?
>
> > As a working palaeontologist,
>
> you probably belive in the Number of the Beast, the larger and rounder
> it is the more pleasure you derive and the more silenced (in awe:) your
> spiritual opponents become.
>
Excuse me?
> THOUSANDS - Hurrah, and up it rises,
> MILLIONS - Hurrah, and up it rises,
> BILLIONS - Hurrah, and up it rises, (early in the morning:)
>
???????
> Whereas it is just an abstract number it exists not in Nature but in
> the mental universe of mathematics. In Nature 'addition' is
> meaningless, there aren't even two uniformly identical "members" or
> "elements" (apart from the words and numbers in our head and books:)
> that could be counted (or manipulated algebraically:).
>
> Also "as a working paleontologist, you are aware" of the necessary
> assumptions made along the way to obtaining the huge dating numbers,
> the credulous public however, is not.
Any member of the public is perfectly capable of picking up and
reading any number of accessible and well-written books on the
subject.
> And that is not entirely honest,
Why?
> my whole point can be summarised by this: professional 'experts' should
> treat the 'ignorant' masses with respect.
I spend a lot of my time talking to the people you label 'ignorant
masses'. I find it interesting. Many of them are well-informed on the
subject, most are fascinated by the fossils, and the way in which we
learn from them about the animals which once lived and breathed on
this planet. Some have interesting insights to offer.
> That is, stop the
> inspirational usage (in textbooks, interviews) of scholastic rhetoric
> (i.e. making a theory look like a sure fact) and absolute certainty,
> allow instead for doubt, uncertainty, alternatives and spell out
> explicitly the assumptions of the THEORY.
>
I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is using 'scholastic
rhetoric'? Who is offering 'absolute certainty'? One of the
fundamental principles of science is falsifiablity - i.e. trying to
disprove every theory. If we (as scientists) are constantly trying to
prove theories wrong, how the hell can we offer 'absolute certainty'?
If we had that, what would be the point to science?
> {As it is done in specialised journals, i.e. treating the audience as
> experts. If time or space of 'interview' is short to explain those
> essential 'details' then better say nothing instead of conveying the
> wrong impression of fixed certainty.}
>
So just shut up about it? If someone asks about it, tell them that
they are too stupid to understand?
I put up on my web site (www.plesiosaur.com) what I think are good,
clear explanations of various aspects of plesiosaur palaeontology.
> > As a working palaeontologist, I am unaware of any scientific dispute
> > over the question of whether or not evolution occured. Please bear in
> > mind that creationist tracts are considered by almost all scientists as
> > a joke.
>
> Perhaps, though as you've seen the scale of the joke is much wider:
> "almost all skeptics consider" any word "a joke".
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. The reason why
scientists consider creationist tracts a joke is that they are
ill-informed, badly argued, badly written and full of lies,
misrepresentations and deception. The only reason why any scientist
devotes much time to responding to creationist claims is not that they
have any scientific merit, but that the politiocal influence of the
hucksters promoting the creationist message is a danger to the
fundamentals of science teaching in the US. They have virtually no
influence anywhere else.
>
> > Also, if evolution is an atheist religion, why to the majority of the
> > world's Christians, let alone adherents to other religions, have no
> > problem in accepting it as sound science?
>
> You find it surprising? We've all "accepted it" because we were told
> and inspired to do so. It has become like the modern State religion (to
> borrow from Chris a term I saw last week in sci.skeptic) and we all
> read the same Scriptures, same Textbook, we all share One School and
> Classroom, One News media, One Television, One Evolutionary
> 'Documentary' (computer graphics in bright colours and astonishingly
> smooth transformations, the flow of millions of years as a gradual,
> continuous transition, almost as real:). Add to that that all those
> sources sell 'extrovert' science (as opposed to introvert "know
> thyself") as the only legitimate method of inquiry and the evolutionary
> dogma is complete--"nothing can ever remove it from its firm base,
> nothing but evolution".
>
I was asking for evidence of how evolution is in trouble as science.
How is this relevant?
I doubt if many practicing Christians outside the US would agree with
you.
To repeat, science is not religion. Few religous people have much
difficulty in understanding that they deal with different areas of
human experience.
> With passage of time, as our mind and understanding evolve it may
> eventually turn out wrong (or just a special case when looked upon from
> another perspective), which is the major lesson from the history of
> science; similar has been the fate of any other scientific theory so
> far (Galileo's Sun at the centre of the Universe, Kepler, Newton, ...
> you name it; perhaps excluding only some mathematical theorems but I
> revealed to you the whereabouts of their 'real' domain--not in Nature
> outside:). Which should make us more cautious when faced with
> scholastic assertions and claims of absolute truth or knowledge.
>
I was asking for evidence of how evolution is in trouble as science.
How is this relevant?
Where are the "scholastic assertions and claims of absolute truth or
knowledge"
> And who said that one prevailing dogma at a time was the best
> (scientific) path to 'knowledge' and 'truth' (let alone wisdom or
> happiness:)?
I was asking for evidence of how evolution is in trouble as science.
How is this relevant?
> Why should there be just one fittest theory, only one
> surviving dogma at a time, what happened with tolerance, peaceful
> coexistence of "bio-diversity"?
The "tolerance, peaceful coexistence of bio-diversity"? Where can we
observe this? When our cat comes brings half a mouse into our bed is
this the "tolerance, peaceful coexistence of bio-diversity"?
> Who needs all children to be
> indoctrinated and then examined (i.e. make them learn by heart and
> parrot by rote), who needs them to think alike?
A decent education system doesn't teach them in this way.
> Let there be more
> variety of parallel universes and points of view, here is an original
> example:
>
> Evolution is the law of policies: Darwin said it, Socrates endorsed
> it, Cuvier proved it and established it for all time in his paper on
> "The Survival of the Fittest." These are illustrious names, this is
> a mighty doctrine: nothing can ever remove it from its firm base,
> nothing dissolve it, but evolution.
> Mark Twain
Your point being?
You've given me a load of pseudo-intellectual drivel, most of which
completely misses the point. I was asking for evidence of how
evolution is in trouble as science.
Please provide some evidence.
In as few words as possible.
And on this thread, not a new thread.
RF
Ann
nice to hear from you and prepare for a longer treatise :). A truly
'independent' observer may notice that while I was writing (in English
I thought:) my "pseudo-intellectual drivel you've given me a load of"
brisk questions in return, like:
??????? We do? What? Why? Excuse me? What main paradoxes? What is
'abstract' about the evolutionary process?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. I have no idea what
you are talking about. I thought we were addressing the limitations
of evolutionary theory. I was asking for evidence of how evolution is
in trouble as science.(4 times:) Get to the point!
What the hell is the point of this? Your point being?(3 times) Why
is this relevant? How is this relevant?(3)
Richard, 21 Apr 2004
Exactly what I meant, yet you still do not get it, do you, and probably
still wonder "Who is using 'scholastic rhetoric'?" :) Maybe it has
become scientists' second Nature, who knows? "Know thyself" remember,
that was my point (what, missed again?:)
And when you do you'll realize how questions like "Who is offering
'absolute certainty'? If we had that, what would be the point to
science?" are somewhat rhetorical and to some of them you even have
given a tentative answer yourself, like "the political influence of the
hucksters promoting the creationist message is a danger to the
fundamentals of science teaching in the US". There it is, at least one
"point to science" :), i.e. "creationist message is a danger to the
fundamentals of science"
{the curious question being, why do you feel so? Is it about the money,
the prestige of science, its reputation among school-children or ... ,
would you, please, spell it out for me, what is this "danger"? And to
whom? :)}
Others like "What is 'abstract' about the evolutionary process?" need not
even an answer, or do they :) Let me just point out that the hard
(tangible) "keyboard at which you sit and type this" is less abstract
(more real:) than the Evolutionary Process, go figure. Or is it not, then
when was your last encounter (of a first type:), have you met the Process
'walking' independently in Nature (or say the zero or the "natural" and
"real" Number for that matter:). If so could you arrange me an
appointment, for real (i.e. not in a book:).
Dead earnest discussion
(Be earnest or Be happy?)
The scientific doctrine preaches that there is only one divine style of
useful discussion - the bloody serious scholastic rhetoric coupled with
logic of steel. And that even in a Newsgroup talk over the Internet :).
Actually, a good early indicator for an accomplished scientific
transformation is when 'we' find ourselves imposing on others our views
about the "relevant" content (or style:) of a Usenet discussion.
Consequently, what you "don't understand" is immediately (and
repeatedly:) deemed beside the point (at best:) or worse -- the
irrelevant "drivel" of a "pseudo-intellectual". Which must be a great
pity (poor me:) for "the truth of things is the chief nutriment of
superior intellects" and especially of its 'genius' author (Leonardo da
Vinci in that case:).
The fugitive
(the missing point:)
As a matter of fact my entire letter was "addressing the limitations of
evolutionary theory" (touching even on the dating methods of paleontology,
as a byproduct:). Though I am well aware of how difficult it is to see the
point, it has to do with the 7-th universal law of thermodynamic human
nature: we 'see' what we would like to see. And conversely, we do not see
what we do not like to see :)
This modern art of seeing is in turn linked to the art of "reasoning:
weighing probabilities in the scales of desire" (The Devil's
Dictionary). The theory in question is not 'objective' even for a simpler
reason: it is invented by proud men who decided that humans are the
highest "ladder of life in the Great Chain of Being", "the most favoured
race" by the Process. Which is an assumption (to me untenable), we haven't
asked the animals or trees for their opinion, we know nothing about their
point of view and 'intelligence' (or supposed lack thereof). We are the
ones who 'design' the definitions as we see fit.
It started again with Aristotle, his proud ego concluded that he was the
highest animal (that should take charge of Nature and all other creatures,
e.g. cut the "pseudo-intellectual" trees for paper and write divine
evolutionary theories on them:). The first Darwinist weighed the animals in
his scales of desire and ranked them (Oxford dictionary):
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) contended that there was gradation in
the natural world because organisms ranged from being relatively
simple to extremely complex. He suggested that nature passed from
inanimate objects to plants and then to animals such that all
living things could be arranged on a scale of increasing
complexity. Aristotle's view eventually became converted this into
the grand concept of the scala naturae or Great Chain of
Being. This concept suggests there is a "ladder of life" and each
species has an allotted rung along this ladder.
http://www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/history.html
His work on the classification of animals by means of a scale
ascending to man (without implying evolution) was not fully
appreciated until the 19th century: Darwin acknowledged a debt to
him.
The words I spent on how space-time is generally relative (subjective) was
that it differs (curves, bends, quickens) depending on the point of view,
i.e. "reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
(Einstein). Or the Matrix:
MORPHEUS: What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about
what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and
see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your
brain.
On what grounds can we decide that our senses are the perfect perceivers
and 'deliver' the only real 'truth' about 'reality' outside. Nothing
remains the same (except the image in our mind:) when viewed under a
different space-time angle and the universe can seem/be rather different
even within our species. Do we know the world of Homer, what his reality
was, how did ancient Greeks 'see' the Earth and the sky. Do you know how
the world looks like in the eyes of a little child? Do you remember what
you 'saw' when you were one year old? {Come on, sounds difficult but not
impossible, and must be much easier to remember than the "millions of
years".}
And who gives us the right to judge that the magic world of rainbows
little children see (my case) is less real than ours, and what about the
other species. We have no way of knowing how animals see (feel, smell,
touch...) their 'reality', we know nothing about their world :) Nothing
even about their point of view on us, maybe to the tree or dog we are not
the "most complex" but the most simple organism, maybe gorillas do not
talk not because they are stupid or less intelligent, but because they do
not want to. In order to judge or 'just' define words like 'complex',
'intelligent' for all of Nature, all other living things, we have to know
their perspective, and the only way of knowing it is to become one of them
:). Or just assume it with Aristotelian reason:
Mark Twain, "The Lowest Animal"
It now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in
favor of a new and truer one...the Descent of Man from the
Higher Animals.
That was also one of my points, how does it sound. Notice that to me
whether you understand it or not is irrelevant, maybe one day you will. On
the other hand if you'd really like to "get to the point" then you may
start with answering some of my questions too as I have done and shall
continue doing with yours. To tell you the 'truth' (my truth:) I am still
flabbergasted by the 'kind' invitation:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Richard Forrest wrote:
> Your point being?
> You've given me a load of pseudo-intellectual drivel, most of which
> completely misses the point. I was asking for evidence of how
> evolution is in trouble as science.
>
> Please provide some evidence.
> In as few words as possible.
> And on this thread, not a new thread.
> RF
Yeah, I see, you want more "evidence", documented proofs, or parts of a
jaw, perhaps :) A tiny bone that you'd quickly recognise and date to times
immemorial and then swiftly 'reconstruct' from it a fully fledged animal
of flesh and blood (and at least hundred times the size of the original
'evidence'). Sometimes when visiting paleontological museums (that's
right:) or watching TV 'documentaries' I marvel at the wild imagination of
the (movie:) makers --real Creators-- to recognise (imagine or 'see') with
astonishing precision the missing animal from such little a bone.
Again "the problem is choice" (the Architect of "The Matrix"), what is
evidence, how do we define the word 'evidence', what is evidence to some
is a "pseudo-intellectual drivel" to others, the law of
"bio-diversity". People are different and I see no reason at all to force
all children to read from the same book, no matter how evolved or sacred
it might be. And since I am 'also' tolerant I'll remain on 'verbose-mode',
"providing" you with quite a "few words". You know the reason, I told you
already my honest opinion: we either say more or else, in case we face
binding time or space constraints, we'd better say nothing. That is my
style and I like it, though feel free to continue with yours, i.e. with
"as few words as possible".
To be honest, on occasions I also missed your point and hope you'll
explain. For example, the joke about "this thread, not a new thread" was
too exquisite for my "pseudo intellect". Last post was the first I wrote
to you, right, and frankly I had no intentions to change "this thread" or
start "a new thread". As to your most pertinent (persistent) question of
how "you were asking for evidence of how evolution is in trouble as
science" (remember one of your own answers: "creationist message is a
danger to the fundamentals of science":) the situation was simpler than
you thought.
It wasn't me (but perhaps Tarver) claiming that in the first place, so I
am not obliged to give you an answer or otherwise defend that statement,
that's why your persistence surprises me. Browsing back through your post
this seems to be ONE of the questions you (Richard Forrest) have first
posed not to me but probably to Tarver Engineering early in the thread.
Later I spotted the scholastic style of your reply and decided to
'intervene', maybe even give Tarver a hand. Though it is him you should
expect answers from to all of the questions you asked him. Of course, I
gave you an indirect answer (and direct answers to other questions:) but
since you have now asked so many times already here are a couple of words,
"as few as possible" (alas, the other remarks of mine do not count since
they were more general "troubles" outside of the limited scope of
"science"):
Intuitively, the "trouble of evolution as science" is that its proponents
claim omnisciently long memory (a miracle beyond any comprehension), which
then allows them to 'know' for sure (without even 1 percent of
doubt/probability that the THEORY might be false) and then present that
'knowledge' as facts in the textbooks and computer animated TV
'documentaries'.
For some mysterious reason, I guess misunderstanding, you didn't
appreciate my answer to another question of yours. :) Which came as a big
shock to me, since my answer was placed exactly at the right place, after
your question. Instead you repeated the mantra of "How was this relevant?"
referring (for a fourth time, maybe:) to the wrong question "of how
evolution is in trouble as science". Failing to observe that my "relevant"
answer was to your question of:
Also, if evolution is an atheist religion, why to the majority of
the world's Christians, let alone adherents to other religions, have
no problem in accepting it as sound science?
sci.Richard
The answer is quite obvious, actually, and it was provided in the
"relevant" place. The phenomenon has many names, some of them are State
religion, Holy Textbook, TV, you name it, they all go under the collective
heading of 'propaganda' -- the same thing we are engaged now, in this very
moment:)
Let me conclude that I see no "danger" if children are allowed different
points of view in SCHOOL, if the theory you like is indeed (and
obviously:) the single truth then students will have no problems making up
their minds. If on the other hand, they find the 'overwhelming' evidence
inconclusive or are just unwilling to commit 100%, they may instead assign
less (but not absolute zero:) probability mass on the alternatives and
more on your favourite ('right') one. In either case I do not see the
"danger", at least not for the school-children (from both camps), in fact
it may open their mind for possibilities that were before inconceivable :)
Best,
Ann
PS: below you may stumble upon other witty comments, to the point :)
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Ann wrote
> Your point being?
Here is the bone of contention, somebody else (presumably Tarver) not me,
told the "troubling" news, and of course, you were right to ask him for
details.
> > > Could you please give me some examples of how evolution is in trouble
> > > as science?
> > You see the trick, it's already in the question for how do you define
> > "sound science"?
> I wasn't asking anyone to define 'sound science'. I was asking for
> evidence of how evolution is in trouble as science.
I know what you were asking (how couldn't I:), though your question
contained the word 'science'. Nowadays it seems self-explanatory and all
encompassing (including even the science of philosophy, what a funny
paradox; I mean, the superset suddenly became a subset and indeed most
philosophers of today passionately defend the scientific method of enquiry
forgetting/neglecting the alternatives:) but it wasn't always the case.
> > You think it a trivial matter? You'd probably give me
> > the Aristotelian definition (that was slightly refined through the
> > centuries) and then there won't be any "trouble".
> See above. I didn't.
> > While originally
> > science had a different meaning back then in classic Greece - for Plato
> > it meant philosophy, a quest, an honest inquiry. Later his student
> > Aristotle redefined (narrowed) the definition to an objective,
> > "empirical" (his word also) exploration of independent Nature outside.
> > We were made to accept the reality of the word 'objective' with the
> > definition as if it were possible for sure (and beyond any doubt:
> > scholastic language of 100% certainty being his other innovation later
> > embraced by religion and scientific textbooks). Now to your question.
> Are you suggesting that scientists are not aware of the difference
> between subjective and objective phenomena?
I was "suggesting" something more, actually: that the only objective
entity is the word 'objective' itself, i.e. 'objective' is not that real,
it boils down to the subjective pair of eyes (ears,... other senses
including the sixth one:) of the 'independent' adult human researcher
(observer).
> > The "trouble of the evolution" as a quest for the truth is that the main
> > paradoxes still remain unresolved.
> What 'main paradoxes'?
"The Origin of Species", for example, Darwin's ambitious title that gave
him the flying start in our hearts and minds. And that is what I touched
upon. You didn't expect me to 'crucify' the holy evolution in a post and
that wasn't my intention, consider my treatise as a call for less
dogmatism and more tolerance, to preserve the materialistic-spiritual
balance until 'the time comes' :)
Of course, when pressed I can figure out (on demand:) a puzzle for
you. For example, recently even scientists ring alarming bells about the
rapid decline in bio-diversity (possibly caused by human design/action,
one example http://www.eces.org/archive/ec/ecwhatsnew.shtml but you
probably know of better links). Many species just disappear (do not
survive or adapt to the human invasion), whereas our most favoured species
turns out the fittest (hopefully not the only one:) survivor, and we
multiply and multiply ...
AGENT SMITH: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time
here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I
realized that you're not actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural
equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans
do not. You move to an area and you multiply until every
natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is
to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the
same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are
a plague, and we are the cure.
Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur.
Consider the 'improbable' scenario that the "highest animal" gradually
surrounds himself only with 'tasty wheat' (i.e. breeds that serve his
purposes:). In the limit of such a hypothetical example, the only other
"fittest survivors" would be the species that WE SELECT and grow (and
possibly have designed, by say crossing or mixing of breeds) like:
poultry, cattle, wheat, pigs and perhaps some 'toys' we like to play with
like dogs and cats. Proud animals (like tigers) that refuse to be tamed
will be 'naturally deselected' (selected to be killed or shipped to the
zoo:). If the current trend of extinction is preserved (say at a constant
rate) one result might be:
No one else around but us and those we grow.
{Similar to "the Matrix" where there were only the superior Artificially
Intelligent machines and the humans they grew in the power plants to
generate energy.}
The paradox is this: would such an outcome count as a product of Natural
Selection. If that were in the great scheme of things of the Evolutionary
Process then who's Nature and the Designer? Wouldn't it be us acting in
the role of the almighty Creator and the Process? After all it'd be us
who select and protect their survival, we design, adapt and grow them.
> > It might indeed have given us elegant
> > descriptions (words:) in terms of teensy-weeny 'genes' (and their
> > invisible struggle for fittest survival), huge round numbers ("millions"
> > mostly, and what a remarkable memory by your colleagues:), purely random
> > mutations (although "God doesn't play dice" for Einstein:)
> Why bring in Einstein? Is this argument from authority? Not only is God
> playing dice with the universe, He's using loaded dice. (Ian Stewart) or
> Not only does God play dice, but He throws them where we cannot see
> them. (Richard Feyman)
:) nice counterattack, yet still, have you by any chance seen or met
anywhere in Nature pure randomness? Or do you consider computer randomness
(the pseudo random number generators:) a worthy substitute :)
Random Number, n. In computer science, the output of a deterministic
algorithm carefully designed to produce output according
to a specific distribution, deemed far too important to
leave to chance.
Hayward's Unabridged Dictionary
> > , the abstract
> > yet Almighty Evolutionary Process
> What is 'abstract' about the evolutionary process? You're preaching.
We're both "preaching" and it seems unavoidable in such a war of words
(propaganda:). As to the nature of the word 'Process', when writing the
word 'abstract' I imagined the following (Webster Unabridged) meaning:
"Considered apart from any application to a particular object; separated
from matter; existing in the mind only; as, abstract truth, abstract
numbers. Hence: ideal; abstruse; difficult." I gave you a hint in the
introduction, can you see, feel, touch, ... or otherwise objectivate and
materialise the Process?
If you reply that it nevertheless refers to real, tangible objects in
reality outside (i.e. not only in our mind) like animals and plants you'll
be right. To me it still doesn't make the complex word 'Process' any less
abstract, but that is in the nature of variety: opinions are bound to
differ (although ask a little child to grasp the 'Evolution' or just fetch
the 'Process':).
> > and so on. Though we are still at square
> > one of Creation, we still know nothing.
> So we have learned nothing about the evolution?
> > And the verification test still fails, we cannot make a flea
> Though we a pretty damn close to making a virus.
You know what a teensy-weeny virus is, have seen one in Nature for real or
just trusted an expert authority? Do you know how viruses are
'discovered', 'isolated' and so on, perhaps you think we just take the
microscope and here they are. Alas, not that easy, a lot of guess work and
imagination are needed, and much more (like the genes). We are entitled to
opinions, unfortunately in this case again they seem to differ, you're
safe though, for if you believe in viruses for real then you'll belong to
the normal majority :)
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time
to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
> Why do we need to make a flea to verify that evolution has occured?
:) I didn't phrase it like that, but 'simply' asked whether it wouldn't be
a nice verifying test confirming the grandeur version of evolution,
"Origin of species" and Beginning (dead 'matter' before 'life', a la and
slightly beyond Aristotelian "body primary in order of generation to the
soul").
Of course, the grand Big Bangeous hypothesis is difficult to defend (the
level of abstraction is insurmountable:) and I've seen evolutionists back
off (to the second line of defence:) and narrow down the definition of
'evolution' to the Process only and when pressed further may even (for the
sake of appearances:) withdraw their support to the "common
ancestor". However, the educating 'documentaries' on evolution I've seen
on TV were aiming high, beginning and ending with the computer generated
simulation of the big thing, from dust to man, so to speak.
So I thought if we really understand that much and praise ourselves to
'know' what's going on then 'from gases and dust to a flea' might have
been a nice first step, wouldn't it. Viruses do not count with me, I'm
afraid; others are happy with them, go figure.
> > but claim to
> > know the Beginning (from common ancestor, gases or whatever:).
> We do? I know of no scientist who claims to 'know the Beginning'
> (whatever that means.)
> > And the
> > same with physicists and their "black holes", "theories of everything" and
> > "superstrings". And what is this infinitesimal singleton with yet infinite
> > mass that exploded in the Big Bang to give birth to 'time' and 'space'? A
> > word, for sure ("In the beginning was the Word"), but what else. And how
> > would 'time' and 'space' collapse back into it, and what was the
> > millisecond before the Big Bang?
> Your point being? I thought we were addressing the limitations of
> evolutionary theory.
Maybe you could give me your working definition of "evolutionary theory",
that'll be a good start so next time I'll address exactly its
"limitations". So please, do not limit it that much :)
> > Void, Infinitesimal Emptiness and Nothingness, the nucleus of the
> > Vacuum?
> I suggest you address that question to a physicist. They have a wealth
> of theories. It may even be possible to devise a test for some of
> them. Who knows?
Theoretical physicists have long given up testing their theories, all they
care about now is to discover the needed mathematical tools to solve the
synthesising equations. In fact, their latest invention the superstrings
"Theory of Everything" is per definition untestable, regardless of the
size of the Supercollider. It is a purely intellectual construct that we
either accept {e.g. a 10 dimensional space splitting into an infinitesimal
(and cunning, i.e. don't look for it:) 6 dimensional subspace and the 4
dim space-time of our universe} or not based on our personal preferences.
> > And what came first, aren't you curious, The chicken or the egg? I do
> > not care if some use the same word for them (one "species"), to me an
> > egg and a chicken are two different things, they look and feel
> > differently, and also taste differently. Thus, I am not asking how the
> > species evolved, adapted and mutated to finally produce the species
> > 'chicken', my question is much simpler: how the 'baby-things' mutated
> > to an egg, and the 'adult-animals' to a chicken and what mutated first?
> > What came first on the Evolutionary arrow of time, the chicken or the
> > egg?
> What the hell is the point of this? What has mutation to do with the
> development of the chicken embryo? Why is this relevant?
:) It is funny, and it is still a paradox, isn't it. By my (not so
strict:) standards that already qualifies it for "relevance".
> > There must have been a Beginning, both of them must have had one,
> > logical isn't it. It is this discrete (as opposed to smoothly
> > continuous:) event of the first mutation I am talking about, can you
> > imagine it?
> What?
> > > As a working palaeontologist,
> > you probably belive in the Number of the Beast, the larger and rounder
> > it is the more pleasure you derive and the more silenced (in awe:) your
> > spiritual opponents become.
> Excuse me?
:) :)
> ???????
> Why?
The purpose of the Aristotelian 'language of truth' is to inspire the
credulous soul. With scholastic certainty I meant that school textbooks
often present theories as facts, as the way things are. And children
believe what they read (and these are not scientific journals:), the
question is do they have to. Why should we write with certainty when we
know that 10 or 20 years from now the textbook will be 'updated' or
completely rewritten with the next truth. It has always been the case so
far, so many universal theories have come and gone.
What makes us so certain that this is it: exactly what we are reading
today is the ultimate theory, the real thing.
> > {As it is done in specialised journals, i.e. treating the audience as
> > experts. If time or space of 'interview' is short to explain those
> > essential 'details' then better say nothing instead of conveying the
> > wrong impression of fixed certainty.}
> So just shut up about it? If someone asks about it, tell them that
> they are too stupid to understand?
> I put up on my web site (www.plesiosaur.com) what I think are good,
> clear explanations of various aspects of plesiosaur palaeontology.
Well done (difficult name though 'p-l-e-s-i-o-s-a-u-r':)
> > > As a working palaeontologist, I am unaware of any scientific dispute
> > > over the question of whether or not evolution occured. Please bear in
> > > mind that creationist tracts are considered by almost all scientists as
> > > a joke.
> > Perhaps, though as you've seen the scale of the joke is much wider:
> > "almost all skeptics consider" any word "a joke".
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
And I thought I've written the shortest and easiest sentence, see how
different we are. "Any word is a joke", that's what I said and meant, of
course the associations (hard links:) in our mind that we try to imagine
upon reading, writing or hearing that word might not be a joke. But the
Word itself is, and if you ask me, we shouldn't trust it too much.
> The reason why scientists consider creationist tracts a joke is that
> they are ill-informed, badly argued, badly written and full of lies,
> misrepresentations and deception. The only reason why any scientist
> devotes much time to responding to creationist claims is not that they
> have any scientific merit, but that the political influence of the
> hucksters promoting the creationist message is a danger to the
> fundamentals of science teaching in the US. They have virtually no
> influence anywhere else.
> > > Also, if evolution is an atheist religion, why to the majority of the
> > > world's Christians, let alone adherents to other religions, have no
> > > problem in accepting it as sound science?
> > You find it surprising? We've all "accepted it" because we were told
> > and inspired to do so. It has become like the modern State religion (to
> > borrow from Chris a term I saw last week in sci.skeptic) and we all
> > read the same Scriptures, same Textbook, we all share One School and
> > Classroom, One News media, One Television, One Evolutionary
> > 'Documentary' (computer graphics in bright colours and astonishingly
> > smooth transformations, the flow of millions of years as a gradual,
> > continuous transition, almost as real:). Add to that that all those
> > sources sell 'extrovert' science (as opposed to introvert "know
> > thyself") as the only legitimate method of inquiry and the evolutionary
> > dogma is complete--"nothing can ever remove it from its firm base,
> > nothing but evolution".
> I was asking for evidence of how evolution is in trouble as science.
> How is this relevant?
"How is this relevant?" :)
Here is the moment to pause and reflect mentioned in the introduction, now
if you reread my answer and your question above it you'll see the
immediate "relevance".
> I doubt if many practicing Christians outside the US would agree with
> you. To repeat, science is not religion. Few religous people have much
> difficulty in understanding that they deal with different areas of human
> experience.
We are entitled to have opinions and they differ widely, are often biased
and prone to error of judgement, I have no problem with tolerant
diversity. For instance, years ago I read that even the Pope have said
there were enough evidence then that the Evolution were more (what?:) than
just a theory. If his advisors think so then it will be so -- for him :)
> > With passage of time, as our mind and understanding evolve it may
> > eventually turn out wrong (or just a special case when looked upon from
> > another perspective), which is the major lesson from the history of
> > science; similar has been the fate of any other scientific theory so
> > far (Galileo's Sun at the centre of the Universe, Kepler, Newton, ...
> > you name it; perhaps excluding only some mathematical theorems but I
> > revealed to you the whereabouts of their 'real' domain--not in Nature
> > outside:). Which should make us more cautious when faced with
> > scholastic assertions and claims of absolute truth or knowledge.
> I was asking for evidence of how evolution is in trouble as science.
> How is this relevant?
> Where are the "scholastic assertions and claims of absolute truth or
> knowledge"
> > And who said that one prevailing dogma at a time was the best
> > (scientific) path to 'knowledge' and 'truth' (let alone wisdom or
> > happiness:)?
> I was asking for evidence of how evolution is in trouble as science.
> How is this relevant?
> > Why should there be just one fittest theory, only one
> > surviving dogma at a time, what happened with tolerance, peaceful
> > coexistence of "bio-diversity"?
> The "tolerance, peaceful coexistence of bio-diversity"? Where can we
> observe this? When our cat comes brings half a mouse into our bed is
> this the "tolerance, peaceful coexistence of bio-diversity"?
:) joke appreciated, although of course, I meant tolerance for, and
peaceful coexistence of, ideas.
> > Who needs all children to be
> > indoctrinated and then examined (i.e. make them learn by heart and
> > parrot by rote), who needs them to think alike?
> A decent education system doesn't teach them in this way.
"A decent education system" preaches separation of Religion and Science
(of 'body and mind', i.e. extrovert Science and Spiritual quests),
scientists fear the remotest association with the word 'God'. Although
have you checked recently the meaning of 'Nature', take a dictionary,
you'll be surprised. Furthermore, "a decent education system" is for the
strict separation of religion and school, i.e. science in, religion
out. So far so good, but in the process, by some purely random chance of
Nature, the only available alternative now to the evolution is
discarded. Instead, I prefer to discard nothing and keep alternatives
around, for who knows where the rabbit could hide.
> > Let there be more
> > variety of parallel universes and points of view, here is an original
> > example:
> >
> > Evolution is the law of policies: Darwin said it, Socrates endorsed
> > it, Cuvier proved it and established it for all time in his paper on
> > "The Survival of the Fittest." These are illustrious names, this is
> > a mighty doctrine: nothing can ever remove it from its firm base,
> > nothing dissolve it, but evolution.
> Your point being?
Generic Consumer
Good luck, man.
Mekkala
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
>
> "Mekkala" <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D185D3...@199.45.49.11...
>> On Tue 20 Apr 2004 09:55:19a, "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net>
>> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up,
>> lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting
>> out:
>>
>> >
>> > "Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in
>> > message news:c635tp$dja$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> If anyone can contact LaRoy Brandt, it might be worth letting him
>> >> (?gender??) know about t.o if he doesn't already. Point to the
>> >> existing Evo/Cre transcripts for examples of what has gone before.
>> >
>> > TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt
>> > anyone outside your little flame war would be interested. After
>> > all, reguritating the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to
>> > be removed from the science program at the school.
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder if you creationists realize how ignorant you look
>> to the rest of the world. You're like flat-earthers.
>
> When I am before the rest of the world I have no problem being the
> majority.
The majority, huh? You really believe the majority of mankind blind
themselves to science and ignorantly cling to fairy-tale creation myths?
You might be interested to know that most of humanity agrees, as the
evidence shows, that evolution did indeed happen, and that all earth
life descended from a common ancestor.
> How is that human psycosis thing working out for you, Mekkala.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's not gonna help your case. Try acting like an
adult.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
Mekkala
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
>
> "Mekkala" <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D185FC...@199.45.49.11...
>> On Tue 20 Apr 2004 11:55:13a, "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net>
>> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up,
>> lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting
>> out:
>>
>> >
>> > "Matchstick" <match...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1aef653b9...@news.individual.de...
>> >> In article <FZedncQjV7P...@sti.net>, jta...@sti.net
>> >> says...
>> >>
>> >> > TO is populated by idiots and Darwinist theologians, so I doubt
>> >> > anyone outside your little flame war would be interested. After
>> >> > all,
> reguritating
>> >> > the ignorance posted at TO could cause Darwin to be removed from
>> >> > the
> science
>> >> > program at the school.
>> >>
>> >> I'm impressed... you've managed to keep a straight face so far
>> >> while posting this stuff.
>> >
>> > Go into a classroom and see if you don't see that old "chain of
>> > life to man" poster there. That poster alone is enough evidence to
>> > have the falsed science of Darwinists bannished.
>> >
>> >> A tip for next time you're trolling though, you'll tend to get
>> >> more responses if you try presenting some "evidence" to back up
>> >> your "arguments" even if it's patently false (aka the Ed Conrad
>> >> technique)
>> >
>> > I have found that most of the trolls in these newsgroups will dish
>> > back nothing and there is no need for me to do any work until some
>> > competent person happens along. It seems TO's biologists have
>> > abandoned the group and that is a shame. At least in those days
>> > there was more than mindless religion here.
>>
>> Yes, we all know "evolutionism" is a religion.
>
> Evolution is the athiest religion and that makes it very difficult for
> the education system to adjust to scientific knowledge. Evolution is
> in trouble as science and the religous are aware of that problem.
Is it? Tell me, how do you explain the evidence shown by endogenous
retroviruses, if not by common descent?
Alternatively, what exactly are the reasons that evolution is "in
trouble"?
Finally, I'd like to you to support your assertion that evolution is a
religion. By what definition of the word is it a "religion"? While
you're at it, please explain how evolution can be the atheist religion,
when so many more Christians and other theists agree with the evidence
and study evolution than atheists? If it's the atheist religion,
shouldn't it be predominantly practiced by atheists?
Richard Forrest
> Hi Richard,
>
> nice to hear from you and prepare for a longer treatise :). A truly
> 'independent' observer may notice that while I was writing (in English
> I thought:) my "pseudo-intellectual drivel you've given me a load of"
> brisk questions in return, like:
>
> ??????? We do? What? Why? Excuse me? What main paradoxes? What is
> 'abstract' about the evolutionary process?
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. I have no idea what
> you are talking about. I thought we were addressing the limitations
> of evolutionary theory. I was asking for evidence of how evolution is
> in trouble as science.(4 times:) Get to the point!
>
> What the hell is the point of this? Your point being?(3 times) Why
> is this relevant? How is this relevant?(3)
>
> Richard, 21 Apr 2004
>
> Exactly what I meant, yet you still do not get it, do you, and probably
> still wonder "Who is using 'scholastic rhetoric'?" :) Maybe it has
> become scientists' second Nature, who knows? "Know thyself" remember,
> that was my point (what, missed again?:)
>
> And when you do you'll realize how questions like "Who is offering
> 'absolute certainty'? If we had that, what would be the point to
> science?" are somewhat rhetorical
It is not rhetorical, because it is inherent in the nature of science
that it does not offer absolute certainty. You imply that it has been
suggested that it does. No scientist who understands the nature of
science could offer 'absolute certainty'.
> and to some of them you even have
> given a tentative answer yourself, like "the political influence of the
> hucksters promoting the creationist message is a danger to the
> fundamentals of science teaching in the US". There it is, at least one
> "point to science" :), i.e. "creationist message is a danger to the
> fundamentals of science"
That's not the 'point to science': it's simply saying that creationism
is a political movement which is pretending to be science.
>
> {the curious question being, why do you feel so? Is it about the money,
Hah!
> the prestige of science,
Nope
> its reputation among school-children or ... ,
Not especially
> would you, please, spell it out for me, what is this "danger"? And to
> whom? :)}
>
The danger is to the educational standards of the USA, and the growth
of power of religious fundamentalists whose agenda is anti-scientific
and anti-libertarianist. The danger to the rest of the world (and bear
in mind that I'm European and writing from Europe) is of a USA
declining in wealth and influence due to lack of proper scientific
education, but armed with weapons of mass destruction and governed by
religious fundametalists. Gulf War II is just a shadow of what might
happen.
> Others like "What is 'abstract' about the evolutionary process?" need not
> even an answer, or do they :) Let me just point out that the hard
> (tangible) "keyboard at which you sit and type this" is less abstract
> (more real:) than the Evolutionary Process, go figure. Or is it not, then
> when was your last encounter (of a first type:), have you met the Process
> 'walking' independently in Nature (or say the zero or the "natural" and
> "real" Number for that matter:). If so could you arrange me an
> appointment, for real (i.e. not in a book:).
Your argument appears to be that because we can't see of touch it,
it's abstract and therefore by implication a matter of faith - i.e. it
becomes religion rather than science.
I can't see or touch an electron. Is the theory of electricity
religious?
I can't see what makes gravity work, and there is no scientific
concensus on how it works. So gravitation is religious?
I can't see or touch ultra-violet radiation. Is electromagnetic theory
religious?
To stop this list being endless, perhaps you could give me a single
example from any branch of science which does not require us to accept
the evidence to processes we cannot see or touch?
Or is your argument simply that science is religion?
>
> Dead earnest discussion
> (Be earnest or Be happy?)
>
> The scientific doctrine
It's not doctrine. It's process.
> preaches
It doesn't preach
> that there is only one divine style of
> useful discussion - the bloody serious scholastic rhetoric
Not rhetoric: discussion.
> coupled with
> logic of steel.
Would you prefer lack of logic?
> And that even in a Newsgroup talk over the Internet :).
If someone is offering an idea to a scientists and pretending that it
is science, why not?
> Actually, a good early indicator for an accomplished scientific
> transformation is when 'we' find ourselves imposing on others our views
> about the "relevant" content (or style:) of a Usenet discussion.
Please explain what this means. You're loosing your grasp of English
again.
> Consequently, what you "don't understand" is immediately (and
> repeatedly:) deemed beside the point (at best:) or worse
> -- the irrelevant "drivel" of a "pseudo-intellectual".
Or perhaps I do understand and it is irrelevant drivel?
> Which must be a great
> pity (poor me:) for "the truth of things is the chief nutriment of
> superior intellects" and especially of its 'genius' author (Leonardo da
> Vinci in that case:).
You don't get to truth through making unsubstantiated assertions.
Leonardo's genius is not based on his repetition of dogma, but on his
accute observations of nature, his sceptical approach to accepted
beliefs and his keen analytical brain.
>
> The fugitive
> (the missing point:)
>
> As a matter of fact my entire letter was "addressing the limitations of
> evolutionary theory" (touching even on the dating methods of paleontology,
> as a byproduct:).
Where did you do anything other than make unsubstantiated assertions?
I'm aware of limitations of evolutionary theory - try reading Mark
Ridley's 'The Problems of Evolution'. I don't see you either
adddressing any of those problems or suggesting any sort of viable
alternative.
And touching on the problems of dating methods: read through the
talk.origins pages addressing the problems, then come back with
objections based on real issues.
> Though I am well aware of how difficult it is to see the
> point, it has to do with the 7-th universal law of thermodynamic human
> nature: we 'see' what we would like to see. And conversely, we do not see
> what we do not like to see :)
Again: perhaps I understand your point and still think it has no
merit.
>
> This modern art of seeing is in turn linked to the art of "reasoning:
> weighing probabilities in the scales of desire" (The Devil's
> Dictionary). The theory in question is not 'objective' even for a simpler
> reason: it is invented by proud men who decided that humans are the
> highest "ladder of life in the Great Chain of Being", "the most favoured
> race" by the Process. Which is an assumption (to me untenable), we haven't
> asked the animals or trees for their opinion, we know nothing about their
> point of view and 'intelligence' (or supposed lack thereof). We are the
> ones who 'design' the definitions as we see fit.
I find it hard to take this seriously. Do you honestly think that the
'Great Chain of Being' has anything whatsover to do with modern views
on evolutionary theory? It was outdated even in Darwin's time! The
most vehement objections to evolutionary theory came from people who
realised that it completely demolished the view that man was in some
way superior to the rest of the animal kingdom, and had an exalted
place on the order of things.
If you want to ask a tree for it's opinion on evolutionary theory,
please go ahead. I'll be very interested in the answer you get.
>
> It started again with Aristotle, his proud ego concluded that he was the
> highest animal (that should take charge of Nature and all other creatures,
> e.g. cut the "pseudo-intellectual" trees for paper and write divine
> evolutionary theories on them:). The first Darwinist
So Aristotle was a Darwinist?
When was a time machine invented?
> weighed the animals in
> his scales of desire and ranked them (Oxford dictionary):
>
> Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) contended that there was gradation in
> the natural world because organisms ranged from being relatively
> simple to extremely complex. He suggested that nature passed from
> inanimate objects to plants and then to animals such that all
> living things could be arranged on a scale of increasing
> complexity. Aristotle's view eventually became converted this into
> the grand concept of the scala naturae or Great Chain of
> Being. This concept suggests there is a "ladder of life" and each
> species has an allotted rung along this ladder.
> http://www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/history.html
>
> His work on the classification of animals by means of a scale
> ascending to man (without implying evolution) was not fully
> appreciated until the 19th century: Darwin acknowledged a debt to
> him.
>
Your point being?
Evolutionary theory is commonly held to have originated in Aristotle's
views (though some author's look to an earlier source). It has been
developed and refined over the centuries and millenia. Scientific
theories are not dogma, they are not carved in tablets of stone, they
change and adapt to new findings and insights.
> The words I spent on how space-time is generally relative (subjective) was
> that it differs (curves, bends, quickens) depending on the point of view,
> i.e. "reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
> (Einstein).
The point you missed was that although Einstein completely changed out
perception of space and time, his work did not invalidate Newtonian
physics: it simply added an extra layer, and explained certain
anomolies.
We can send a rocket to the moon using the Newtonian theory of
graviation. It only breaks down at extremes of speed and time: the GPS
satellite system, relying as it does on very precise measurement of
time has to factor relativity effects into its calculations.
> Or the Matrix:
Oh, please!
>
> MORPHEUS: What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about
> what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and
> see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your
> brain.
>
> On what grounds can we decide that our senses are the perfect perceivers
> and 'deliver' the only real 'truth' about 'reality' outside.
I don't, and what's more science confirm it.
> Nothing
> remains the same (except the image in our mind:) when viewed under a
> different space-time angle and the universe can seem/be rather different
> even within our species.
And what is a 'space-time angle'?
> Do we know the world of Homer, what his reality
> was, how did ancient Greeks 'see' the Earth and the sky. Do you know how
> the world looks like in the eyes of a little child? Do you remember what
> you 'saw' when you were one year old? {Come on, sounds difficult but not
> impossible, and must be much easier to remember than the "millions of
> years".}
>
> And who gives us the right to judge that the magic world of rainbows
> little children see (my case) is less real than ours, and what about the
> other species. We have no way of knowing how animals see (feel, smell,
> touch...) their 'reality', we know nothing about their world :) Nothing
> even about their point of view on us, maybe to the tree or dog we are not
> the "most complex" but the most simple organism, maybe gorillas do not
> talk not because they are stupid or less intelligent, but because they do
> not want to. In order to judge or 'just' define words like 'complex',
> 'intelligent' for all of Nature, all other living things, we have to know
> their perspective, and the only way of knowing it is to become one of them
> :). Or just assume it with Aristotelian reason:
>
> Mark Twain, "The Lowest Animal"
>
> It now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in
> favor of a new and truer one...the Descent of Man from the
> Higher Animals.
>
Very poetic.
What is the point you are trying to make?
And what does this have to do with the limitations of evolutionary
theory?
> That was also one of my points, how does it sound. Notice that to me
> whether you understand it or not is irrelevant, maybe one day you will. On
> the other hand if you'd really like to "get to the point" then you may
> start with answering some of my questions too as I have done and shall
> continue doing with yours. To tell you the 'truth' (my truth:) I am still
> flabbergasted by the 'kind' invitation:
>
What questions are you asking?
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > Your point being?
> > You've given me a load of pseudo-intellectual drivel, most of which
> > completely misses the point. I was asking for evidence of how
> > evolution is in trouble as science.
> >
> > Please provide some evidence.
> > In as few words as possible.
> > And on this thread, not a new thread.
> > RF
>
> Yeah, I see, you want more "evidence", documented proofs, or parts of a
> jaw, perhaps :) A tiny bone that you'd quickly recognise and date to times
> immemorial and then swiftly 'reconstruct' from it a fully fledged animal
> of flesh and blood (and at least hundred times the size of the original
> 'evidence').
You evidently have very little knowledge of the science of
palaeontology or the discipline of comparitive anatomy if you believe
that it is a glib and unquestioning as this.
> Sometimes when visiting paleontological museums (that's
> right:) or watching TV 'documentaries' I marvel at the wild imagination of
> the (movie:) makers --real Creators-- to recognise (imagine or 'see') with
> astonishing precision the missing animal from such little a bone.
>
So do I. That's why I treat extrapolations from very limited evidence
with extreme caution. So do most palaeontologists.
> Again "the problem is choice" (the Architect of "The Matrix"), what is
> evidence, how do we define the word 'evidence', what is evidence to some
> is a "pseudo-intellectual drivel" to others, the law of
> "bio-diversity".
Please explain
1) What is the 'Law of Biodiversity'.
2) In what sense it is evidence?
> People are different and I see no reason at all to force
> all children to read from the same book, no matter how evolved or sacred
> it might be.
Couldn't agree more. On the other hand, I don't want to teach children
things which are not true.
> And since I am 'also' tolerant I'll remain on 'verbose-mode',
> "providing" you with quite a "few words". You know the reason, I told you
> already my honest opinion: we either say more or else, in case we face
> binding time or space constraints, we'd better say nothing. That is my
> style and I like it, though feel free to continue with yours, i.e. with
> "as few words as possible".
>
The main problem with your many words approach is that you tend to
stray so far from the main point of the dialogue that it is hard to
remember what the original discussion was about!
> To be honest, on occasions I also missed your point and hope you'll
> explain. For example, the joke about "this thread, not a new thread" was
> too exquisite for my "pseudo intellect". Last post was the first I wrote
> to you, right, and frankly I had no intentions to change "this thread" or
> start "a new thread". As to your most pertinent (persistent) question of
> how "you were asking for evidence of how evolution is in trouble as
> science" (remember one of your own answers: "creationist message is a
> danger to the fundamentals of science":) the situation was simpler than
> you thought.
I'm sorry, but that is not an answer.
That the creationist agenda is a danger to science has nothing to do
with evolution being 'in trouble as science'.
>
> It wasn't me (but perhaps Tarver) claiming that in the first place, so I
> am not obliged to give you an answer or otherwise defend that statement,
> that's why your persistence surprises me. Browsing back through your post
> this seems to be ONE of the questions you (Richard Forrest) have first
> posed not to me but probably to Tarver Engineering early in the thread.
>
> Later I spotted the scholastic style of your reply and decided to
> 'intervene', maybe even give Tarver a hand. Though it is him you should
> expect answers from to all of the questions you asked him. Of course, I
> gave you an indirect answer (and direct answers to other questions:) but
> since you have now asked so many times already here are a couple of words,
> "as few as possible" (alas, the other remarks of mine do not count since
> they were more general "troubles" outside of the limited scope of
> "science"):
>
> Intuitively, the "trouble of evolution as science" is that its proponents
> claim omnisciently long memory
No they don't!
> (a miracle beyond any comprehension), which
> then allows them to 'know' for sure
No they don't!
> (without even 1 percent of
> doubt/probability that the THEORY might be false) and then present that
> 'knowledge' as facts in the textbooks and computer animated TV
> 'documentaries'.
No they don't: they present the evidence in scientific papers!
>
> For some mysterious reason, I guess misunderstanding, you didn't
> appreciate my answer to another question of yours. :) Which came as a big
> shock to me, since my answer was placed exactly at the right place, after
> your question. Instead you repeated the mantra of "How was this relevant?"
> referring (for a fourth time, maybe:) to the wrong question "of how
> evolution is in trouble as science". Failing to observe that my "relevant"
> answer was to your question of:
>
> Also, if evolution is an atheist religion, why to the majority of
> the world's Christians, let alone adherents to other religions, have
> no problem in accepting it as sound science?
> sci.Richard
>
> The answer is quite obvious, actually, and it was provided in the
> "relevant" place. The phenomenon has many names, some of them are State
> religion, Holy Textbook, TV, you name it, they all go under the collective
> heading of 'propaganda' -- the same thing we are engaged now, in this very
> moment:)
So your answer is that all the worlds Christians have been brainwashed
in some way (by TV? Holy Textbooks?) in such a way that they suspend
all critical judgement and accept unquestioningly the evidence
presented to them by some nebulous conspiracy of 'evolutionists'?
I suggest that you read some accounts of the early history and
development of geology.
>
> Let me conclude that I see no "danger" if children are allowed different
> points of view in SCHOOL, if the theory you like is indeed (and
> obviously:) the single truth then students will have no problems making up
> their minds.
> If on the other hand, they find the 'overwhelming' evidence
> inconclusive or are just unwilling to commit 100%, they may instead assign
> less (but not absolute zero:) probability mass on the alternatives and
> more on your favourite ('right') one. In either case I do not see the
> "danger", at least not for the school-children (from both camps), in fact
> it may open their mind for possibilities that were before inconceivable :)
>
The danger is when they are asked to accept as fact a fabric of lies
and distortions.
Where does 'possibly' come from? Of course it's caused by human
action! Cutting down a rainforest causes a rapid decline in
biodiversity!
> caused by human design/action,
> one example http://www.eces.org/archive/ec/ecwhatsnew.shtml but you
> probably know of better links). Many species just disappear (do not
> survive or adapt to the human invasion), whereas our most favoured species
> turns out the fittest (hopefully not the only one:) survivor, and we
> multiply and multiply ...
I'm sorry, but I completely fail to understand why you are offering
this as evidence of an evolutionary paradox.
>
> AGENT SMITH: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time
> here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I
> realized that you're not actually mammals.
Human beings are not mammals?
>
> Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural
> equilibrium with the surrounding environment
This is news to any ecologist, or anyone else who has studied the
subject!
> but you humans
> do not. You move to an area and you multiply until every
> natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is
> to spread to another area.
Same for any other animal and plant.
>
> There is another organism on this planet that follows the
> same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
>
All organisms follow this pattern
> Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are
> a plague, and we are the cure.
>
> Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur.
>
'The Matrix' is not a reliable source of information on evolutionary
theory. It is (in my view at least) a rather poor film, based on a
premise which in scientific (not to say engineering) terms is complete
and utter garbage.
> Consider the 'improbable' scenario that the "highest animal" gradually
> surrounds himself only with 'tasty wheat' (i.e. breeds that serve his
> purposes:). In the limit of such a hypothetical example, the only other
> "fittest survivors" would be the species that WE SELECT and grow (and
> possibly have designed, by say crossing or mixing of breeds) like:
> poultry, cattle, wheat, pigs and perhaps some 'toys' we like to play with
> like dogs and cats. Proud animals (like tigers) that refuse to be tamed
> will be 'naturally deselected' (selected to be killed or shipped to the
> zoo:). If the current trend of extinction is preserved (say at a constant
> rate) one result might be:
>
> No one else around but us and those we grow.
>
> {Similar to "the Matrix" where there were only the superior Artificially
> Intelligent machines and the humans they grew in the power plants to
> generate energy.}
>
> The paradox is this: would such an outcome count as a product of Natural
> Selection.
Yes
>If that were in the great scheme of things of the Evolutionary
> Process then who's Nature and the Designer?
There is no designer. That's the whole point of natural selection.
>? Wouldn't it be us acting in
> the role of the almighty Creator and the Process?
Only if you ascribe to human beings a status above that of all other
living things. We are animals, and we are part of the ecological
system of this planet.
> After all it'd be us
> who select and protect their survival, we design, adapt and grow them.
>
See my answer above
> > > It might indeed have given us elegant
> > > descriptions (words:) in terms of teensy-weeny 'genes' (and their
> > > invisible struggle for fittest survival), huge round numbers ("millions"
> > > mostly, and what a remarkable memory by your colleagues:), purely random
> > > mutations (although "God doesn't play dice" for Einstein:)
>
> > Why bring in Einstein? Is this argument from authority? Not only is God
> > playing dice with the universe, He's using loaded dice. (Ian Stewart) or
> > Not only does God play dice, but He throws them where we cannot see
> > them. (Richard Feyman)
>
> :) nice counterattack, yet still, have you by any chance seen or met
> anywhere in Nature pure randomness?
Brownian motion for a start.
> Or do you consider computer randomness
> (the pseudo random number generators:) a worthy substitute :)
No. Numbers generated by an algorithm are not random. Try a bit of
basic maths.
>
> Random Number, n. In computer science, the output of a deterministic
> algorithm carefully designed to produce output according
> to a specific distribution, deemed far too important to
> leave to chance.
> Hayward's Unabridged Dictionary
>
Try reading about quantum physics. At a very basic level, it's all
random.
> > > , the abstract
> > > yet Almighty Evolutionary Process
>
> > What is 'abstract' about the evolutionary process? You're preaching.
>
> We're both "preaching" and it seems unavoidable in such a war of words
> (propaganda:). As to the nature of the word 'Process', when writing the
> word 'abstract' I imagined the following (Webster Unabridged) meaning:
> "Considered apart from any application to a particular object; separated
> from matter; existing in the mind only; as, abstract truth, abstract
> numbers. Hence: ideal; abstruse; difficult." I gave you a hint in the
> introduction, can you see, feel, touch, ... or otherwise objectivate and
> materialise the Process?
>
> If you reply that it nevertheless refers to real, tangible objects in
> reality outside (i.e. not only in our mind) like animals and plants you'll
> be right. To me it still doesn't make the complex word 'Process' any less
> abstract, but that is in the nature of variety: opinions are bound to
> differ (although ask a little child to grasp the 'Evolution' or just fetch
> the 'Process':).
>
You have just dismissed all science as abstract, not just evolutionary
theory.
> > > and so on. Though we are still at square
> > > one of Creation, we still know nothing.
>
> > So we have learned nothing about the evolution?
>
> > > And the verification test still fails, we cannot make a flea
>
> > Though we a pretty damn close to making a virus.
>
> You know what a teensy-weeny virus is, have seen one in Nature for real or
> just trusted an expert authority? Do you know how viruses are
> 'discovered', 'isolated' and so on, perhaps you think we just take the
> microscope and here they are. Alas, not that easy, a lot of guess work and
> imagination are needed, and much more (like the genes). We are entitled to
> opinions, unfortunately in this case again they seem to differ, you're
> safe though, for if you believe in viruses for real then you'll belong to
> the normal majority :)
>
> Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time
> to pause and reflect.
> Mark Twain
>
>
> > Why do we need to make a flea to verify that evolution has occured?
>
> :) I didn't phrase it like that, but 'simply' asked whether it wouldn't be
> a nice verifying test confirming the grandeur version of evolution,
It wouldn't verify evolution. It would verify that we can make a flea.
> "Origin of species" and Beginning (dead 'matter' before 'life', a la and
> slightly beyond Aristotelian "body primary in order of generation to the
> soul").
>
> Of course, the grand Big Bangeous hypothesis is difficult to defend (the
> level of abstraction is insurmountable:) and I've seen evolutionists back
> off (to the second line of defence:)
Try presenting the problems of the big bang hypothesis to an
cosmologist rather than an evolutionary biologist in that case.
Suggest that it's difficult to defend. Then stand back.
> and narrow down the definition of
> 'evolution' to the Process only and when pressed further may even (for the
> sake of appearances:) withdraw their support to the "common
> ancestor".
Not 'narrow' down. Just clarifying that evolutionary theory as
understood by evolutionary biologist has nothing to do with cosmology,
and that it does not address the problems of biogenesis.
> However, the educating 'documentaries' on evolution I've seen
> on TV were aiming high, beginning and ending with the computer generated
> simulation of the big thing, from dust to man, so to speak.
>
If you get your information on evolutionary theory by watching TV
documentaries it explains a lot.
> So I thought if we really understand that much and praise ourselves to
> 'know' what's going on then 'from gases and dust to a flea' might have
> been a nice first step, wouldn't it. Viruses do not count with me, I'm
> afraid; others are happy with them, go figure.
>
> > > but claim to
> > > know the Beginning (from common ancestor, gases or whatever:).
>
> > We do? I know of no scientist who claims to 'know the Beginning'
> > (whatever that means.)
>
> > > And the
> > > same with physicists and their "black holes", "theories of everything" and
> > > "superstrings". And what is this infinitesimal singleton with yet infinite
> > > mass that exploded in the Big Bang to give birth to 'time' and 'space'? A
> > > word, for sure ("In the beginning was the Word"), but what else. And how
> > > would 'time' and 'space' collapse back into it, and what was the
> > > millisecond before the Big Bang?
>
> > Your point being? I thought we were addressing the limitations of
> > evolutionary theory.
>
> Maybe you could give me your working definition of "evolutionary theory",
> that'll be a good start so next time I'll address exactly its
> "limitations". So please, do not limit it that much :)
>
Here's Alec Panchen's definition and description (from
'Classification, Evolution and the Nature of Biology):
We can characterise the natural selection of the Synthetic Theory as
follows:
Natural Selection occurs in any genetically heterogeneous population
which has excess reproductive potential in a given environment. It is
the enhanced probability of reproductive success of those members of
the population whose heritable phenotypic differences from others
adapt them better to that environment.
The theory of natural selection is then that (1) natural selection is
a necessary condition for adaptive anagcnetic change, and (more
controversially) (2) natural selection is a necessary condition for
cladogenesis (speciation).
More specifically we may list the assumptions made within the
Synthetic Theory, mostly by population geneticists:
(1) That all evolutionary phenomena are, in principle, explicable in
terms of (a) the generation of genetic variation through mutation and
recombination; and (b) changes within populations in genotype and/or
karyotype frequency due to gene flow, genetic drift, and selection.
(2) That differences in "Darwinian fitness" among different genotypes
representing different combinations of alleles at the same locus
reflect differences in degree of adaptiveness (sensu Burian 1983; see
Chapter 11, Section II, above) produced by the phenotypic effects of
those genotypes.
(3) That, at a single gene locus, if one allele goes to fixation, in
most cases that allele is of adaptive significance relative to its
rivals within the gene pool of the population. That allele may thus be
described as having been "selected". The elimination of an allele from
a population, or its approximation to an equilibrium frequency, is
also normally to be explained by selection.
(4) That the frequency of mutation and direction of mutation of
alleles at adaptively significant loci are neither the cause, nor the
result, of the prevailing direction of anagenetic change.
(5) That purely phenotypic differences in one generation do not become
genotypic differences in the next (i.e., inheritance is "hard",
without the "inheritance of acquired characters").
> > > Void, Infinitesimal Emptiness and Nothingness, the nucleus of the
> > > Vacuum?
>
> > I suggest you address that question to a physicist. They have a wealth
> > of theories. It may even be possible to devise a test for some of
> > them. Who knows?
>
> Theoretical physicists have long given up testing their theories,
So why have they just spent 800 million dollars on the gravity probe?
Isn't that testing theories of physics?
> all they
> care about now is to discover the needed mathematical tools to solve the
> synthesising equations. In fact, their latest invention the superstrings
> "Theory of Everything" is per definition untestable, regardless of the
> size of the Supercollider.
It is not by definition untestable. It is by definition testable -
though not with our current technology.
> It is a purely intellectual construct that we
> either accept {e.g. a 10 dimensional space splitting into an infinitesimal
> (and cunning, i.e. don't look for it:) 6 dimensional subspace and the 4
> dim space-time of our universe} or not based on our personal preferences.
>
We accept it on the basis of its ability to make testable predictions.
> > > And what came first, aren't you curious, The chicken or the egg? I do
> > > not care if some use the same word for them (one "species"), to me an
> > > egg and a chicken are two different things, they look and feel
> > > differently, and also taste differently. Thus, I am not asking how the
> > > species evolved, adapted and mutated to finally produce the species
> > > 'chicken', my question is much simpler: how the 'baby-things' mutated
> > > to an egg, and the 'adult-animals' to a chicken and what mutated first?
> > > What came first on the Evolutionary arrow of time, the chicken or the
> > > egg?
>
> > What the hell is the point of this? What has mutation to do with the
> > development of the chicken embryo? Why is this relevant?
>
> :) It is funny, and it is still a paradox, isn't it. By my (not so
> strict:) standards that already qualifies it for "relevance".
In what sense is this a paradox?
If that is the case they are poor text books.
> And children
> believe what they read
Mine don't. They argue to point on everything.
> (and these are not scientific journals:), the
> question is do they have to. Why should we write with certainty when we
> know that 10 or 20 years from now the textbook will be 'updated' or
> completely rewritten with the next truth. It has always been the case so
> far, so many universal theories have come and gone.
>
> What makes us so certain that this is it: exactly what we are reading
> today is the ultimate theory, the real thing.
>
Who is claiming this?
> > > {As it is done in specialised journals, i.e. treating the audience as
> > > experts. If time or space of 'interview' is short to explain those
> > > essential 'details' then better say nothing instead of conveying the
> > > wrong impression of fixed certainty.}
>
> > So just shut up about it? If someone asks about it, tell them that
> > they are too stupid to understand?
>
> > I put up on my web site (www.plesiosaur.com) what I think are good,
> > clear explanations of various aspects of plesiosaur palaeontology.
>
> Well done (difficult name though 'p-l-e-s-i-o-s-a-u-r':)
>
> > > > As a working palaeontologist, I am unaware of any scientific dispute
> > > > over the question of whether or not evolution occured. Please bear in
> > > > mind that creationist tracts are considered by almost all scientists as
> > > > a joke.
>
> > > Perhaps, though as you've seen the scale of the joke is much wider:
> > > "almost all skeptics consider" any word "a joke".
>
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
>
> And I thought I've written the shortest and easiest sentence, see how
> different we are. "Any word is a joke", that's what I said and meant, of
> course the associations (hard links:) in our mind that we try to imagine
> upon reading, writing or hearing that word might not be a joke. But the
> Word itself is, and if you ask me, we shouldn't trust it too much.
>
Sorry, you've lost me here. Can someone else on the forum act as
interpreter?
So why bring biodiversity into it?
>
> > > Who needs all children to be
> > > indoctrinated and then examined (i.e. make them learn by heart and
> > > parrot by rote), who needs them to think alike?
>
> > A decent education system doesn't teach them in this way.
>
> "A decent education system" preaches separation of Religion and Science
> (of 'body and mind', i.e. extrovert Science and Spiritual quests),
> scientists fear the remotest association with the word 'God'. Although
> have you checked recently the meaning of 'Nature', take a dictionary,
> you'll be surprised. Furthermore, "a decent education system" is for the
> strict separation of religion and school, i.e. science in, religion
> out. So far so good, but in the process, by some purely random chance of
> Nature
It's not by 'random chance of Nature'. It's because it isn't an
alternative theory. It is not science.
> , the only available alternative now to the evolution is
> discarded. Instead, I prefer to discard nothing
Discard nothing? Even if it is demonstrably untrue? Even if the
proponents of the idea are liars and hucksters?
Are you going to teach Nazi ideology in your schools? The divine right
of Kings?
Ann
how nice you pepper me with questions :) And you're welcome, though as
you suspect I cannot address all of them at once, the limitation of the
verbal-mode I am in now. Instead I'll tackle the funniest ones (i.e.
those that might give you the chills:). Let us also not forget that it
is only a game of words, sometimes I may combine them in ludicrous ways
to produce the desired effect (e.g. gales of laughter or perplexity, as
you choose) and exercising my rights of freedom of speech and form.
Such was the case, for example, with the "biodiversity of ideas", which
I liked but for whatever reason disturbed you. In short, it was meant
to mean variety of ideas; was it too difficult to infer, or just how
could I dare? That is, "Why bring biodiversity into it?" Because :) it
is my preferred way of writing (playing with) words, I thought the
discussion about the only 'proper' style is behind us, or is it not (I
know it is difficult, but we are making visible progress:).
After the not so short introduction, the post contains two parts: first
comes a defence of religion (and more generally the spiritual
alternative). It is meant to restore sober balance since your vigorous
attack went so far as accusing religion for all evils in the world. I find
such a view an exaggeration (plain ridiculous:), it will be shown to rest
on a number of 'simplifying' assumptions. Then in the appendix attached at
the end I tackle "randomness in quantum physics" and "Brownian motion" by
"trying a bit of basic maths for a start".
Actually, I'm doing it mainly for you, I sense you may suffer under
popular illusions (including, but not limited to, the knowledge base of
the discussants, and isn't it better or 'safer' to assume nothing about
the others "for a start":). As a hint notice that my focus was on the
reality of "real" numbers and pure randomness in Nature, and what was
your reply: quantum physics and Brownian motion.
Are these examples real, do you know where their reality lies?
In the infinitesimal fluxions of the "mental universe of mathematics" and
nowhere else (proof in the appendix:). In the meantime you may ask
yourselves: do you believe in 'infinity' and infinitesimal 'continuity'?
For that's where "faith comes in", all abstract yet modern scientific
constructs, including the Brownian motion, badly need them (here I mean
the mathematical theories of Brownian motion, the first developed by
Einstein won him the Nobel prize. If you instead meant some nice picture
of a particle suspended in a fluid or a sophisticated random number
generator based on a process in plants, then tell me, I'll handle it
somehow:). If you remember, you asked me last time
> Where does the faith come in?
It is exactly hear, creeping in through the back door, through the
infinite set and convergence forever. If we shake their reality the whole
edifice will start to shake, we wake up from a dream.
Before the two main points I'll briefly address 'gravity' and your
latest 'bullet' - 'electricity'. And in my view it is not true, not
"all organisms follow this pattern" of the virus (or of infinite
greed:), not even among the humans. The Indians (native Americans)
lived in thousands of years in "a natural equilibrium with the
surrounding environment" and would probably have continued to do so if
the cycle wasn't broken abruptly. Until one day the Greedy White Man
came on their land to 'survive' as the fittest predator. It was a
rather unnatural self-selection I would say for He wasn't chosen by the
'non-abstract' (happy now?:) Evolutionary Process but by His gun.
Consequently, the 'deselected' became almost extinct.
Notice again who took charge of Nature, who played the role of the
Designer. As to the Newtonian mystical gravitational force, I told you
already Einstein's answer: There is no force!, but a bending of space, the
power of 'gravity' as a simple byproduct of the warping of space-time, go
figure. The "force" was an illusion, imperfection of our eyesight:
However, the quantum theory stands in sharp contrast to
Einstein's general relativity, which postulates an entirely
different physical picture to explain the force of gravity.
Imagine, for the moment, dropping a heavy shot put on a large
bed spread. The shot put will, of course, sink deeply into the
bed spread. Now imagine shooting a small marble across the
bed. Since the bed is warped, the marble will execute a curved
path. However, for a person viewing the marble from a great
distance, it will appear that the shot put is exerting an
invisible "force" on the marble, forcing it to move in a curved
path. In other words, we can now replace the clumsy concept of a
"force" with the more elegant bending of space itself. We now
have an entirely new definition of a "force." It is nothing but
the byproduct of the warping of space.
In the same way that a marble moves on a curved bed sheet, the
earth moves around the sun in a curved path because space-time
itself is curved. In this new picture, gravity is not a "force"
but a byproduct of the warping of space-time. In some sense,
gravity does not exist; what moves the planets and stars is the
distortion of space and time.
(From "A Theory of Everything?", by Dr. Michio Kaku Prof. of
Theoretical Physics http://www.flash.net/~csmith0/theryall.htm)
Now you're telling me that Newton was right because you see his
calculations work approximately. Whereas I have no plans to go to Mars or
the Moon
{you belive someone was there, or you just 'know' it for sure from the TV
'documentary'. I may further assume that your articles of faith include
per default believing with 100% certainty in the mighty 'gene' and
'virus', whereas I 'know', i.e. choose to believe that they are the hoax
of the century. Take it as a friendly notice to prepare for the real
thing, i.e. the shock when the news break out officially. The problem is
that it will also invariably shake the mutating evolutionary theory,
because there is now the battleground (the level of abstraction lifts
higher and higher, getting tinier and tinier, approaching real
invisibility:), these teensy-weeny quasi-objects have evolved into
evolution's two main pillars nowadays. But in fact two words (or sequence
of letters:) without which we (the 'evolutionists':) are lost.}
and I care little about 'proximity', I care about the TRUTH :). So I
reply to you that Newton was plain wrong even. If his laws fail only on
rare occasions, it is still a FAILURE. While you tend to believe that such
small 'exceptions' confirm the rule I believe that, on the contrary, they
are the tip of the iceberg, they suggest that there is something
fundamentally flawed in the whole theory. And it wasn't only me, Einstein
gave us one generally relative hint at where the rabbit might hide: the
inherent imperfection of our sense of sight :).
In other words, the failures (the "certain anomalies") did not imply the
theory was approximately right, they proved that it was totally wrong;
Einstein didn't "simply added an extra layer" but showed that our view of
the world and how it worked was completely mistaken. Yeah, the equations
mysteriously worked but for a different (and to then unimaginable) reason.
And that is how most things work, we start from a black box and then
construct or derive some laws from personal experience: empirical
observation, experimentation and testing, but so far they still didn't
allow us to understand what 'gravity' or "electricity" is (or
"electromagnetism", for that matter). Have you recently checked the
dictionary? Here is one example of a simple tautological chain (perhaps
meant to preclude further questions so that we can finally go to bed:),
let us ask an educated 'electrician':
A: What does an 'electric charge' mean?
E: That quality of matter on which an 'electric field' acts.
A: Oh, I see. But since I am a layman could you tell me what does an
'electric field' mean?
E: A region in space that exerts a force on 'electric charge'.
The circle was closed and were are left flabbergasted, staring in awe at
the genius.
The final point in the lengthy introduction is about the innate
'objectivity' of impartial interpretations. All I was claiming was that
'gravitation force' is at best an imprecise description (word) of what was
really going on, the force wasn't real. Never mentioned of it being
"religious". Then you 'slightly' twisted my words to mean
> I can't see what makes gravity work, and there is no scientific
> concensus on how it works. So gravitation is religious?
to which I again reply that the word "gravitation is unreal", not what it
"appeared to be", whether it is "religion" is debatable, I for one do not
believe in God Gravitation. Therefore, the "i.e." below is incorrect,
"appearances" can be misleading :)
> Your argument appears to be that because we can't see of touch it, it's
> abstract and therefore by implication a matter of faith - i.e. it
> becomes religion rather than science.
To say it again, the 'force of gravity' (the Logos, i.e. the word,
concept, meaning, thought) was indeed an "abstract matter of faith", :)
"and therefore by implication it becomes (it was:) rather science than
religion" which created the word. Newton the Scientist came up with the
idea. Of course, I agree with you if that's what you meant: he was a
deeply religious man with over a million words of research on the bible in
his notebooks :) Now to the first part, your point of
it's all religion's fault
> Richard wrote:
>> Ann wrote:
>>> Richard wrote:
>>> "creationist message is a danger to the fundamentals of science"
>> would you, please, spell it out for me, what is this "danger"? And to
>> whom? :)
> The danger is to the educational standards of the USA, and the growth of
> power of religious fundamentalists whose agenda is anti-scientific and
> anti-libertarianist. The danger to the rest of the world (and bear in
> mind that I'm European and writing from Europe) is of a USA declining in
> wealth and influence due to lack of proper scientific education, but
> armed with weapons of mass destruction and governed by religious
> fundametalists. Gulf War II is just a shadow of what might happen.
Wow, a passionate tirade! :) And a leap of imagination, do you really
believe that "religious fundamentalists" were to blame for "Gulf War II"?
And why should you care about "the wealth and influence of USA", extrovert
scientists usually do it, start caring for Nature, the World, the Galaxy
and the Universe (if it is indeed one, my preference is for the "parallel"
hypothesis:) and forget about themselves, the starting point of another
journey (the introvert "know thyself").
And 'see' how far we got, can you see the result of this care? For I can
and will try to help you open a bit your "eyes (wide shut":). You gave me
the hint actually, guess who "armed us with weapons of mass destruction"?
Did you know that (perhaps without exception:) scientists designed all
modern weapons of mass destruction (bio, atomic, nuclear you name it)?
Have you heard that these devices have incredible destructive power? Do
you know who created the Bomb?
"Religious fundamentalists", perhaps?
Or were they the caring scientists? Sadly enough, Einstein also was in the
a-bomb designer team (they tricked him that they'll bomb Hitler but
instead 'tested' it in Japan), then when finally realized what he had done
went on writing (to the rest of his life) apologetic letters and pacifist
treatises but how does it matter. In fact, it was his concerned letter to
the president that started the project, it is difficult to convince the
public without an influential name like Einstein.
We spotted one root of the problem: scientists seduced by power,
patriotism, money can be the most dangerous weapon (in the hands of
certain individuals, politicians, lovers of war:). That is, they have
their own axe to grind and better look at themselves before 'fixing' the
others. Now back to your point, how is this "drivel relevant" for your
"fundamental" fear - the "dangers" you 'saw' in religion in school.
Well, it might be the case that "USA is governed by religious
fundamentalists", but I doubt it. As I understand it a "religious
fundamentalist" is someone who deeply believes in the bible, the
commandments and the message of Jesus. And to remind you, money was not on
his agenda (he didn't like it at all) nor did he have much respect for
"wealth" (let me know if you need "evidence" or the relevant quotes). What
is more, he preached love and respect for each other but no "war" or "mass
destruction".
You see, a "fundamentalist" believer in Christ cannot do the things you
fear (it might not be limited only to Christianity although there are
notable exceptions:). Per definition an honest person of religious faith
doesn't kill anyone or start "wars" for "wealth and influence", because it
is a sin (some say even a "mortal" one). If someone does, than either he
isn't a true believer (but one in pretence) or else you have a special
definition of "religious fundamentalists".
{Or were concentrating on one particular (extreme) practice of religion,
though your plea implied Christianity.}
Overall, I'm left with the impression that you misdirected your passionate
energy, the roots of the problems you describe may just as well lie
elsewhere. Do you know where?
Not in the word 'religious' but in the "fundamentalist" part. Each and
every one of us has some truths in mind, we carry them with us all along.
They form the basis of our beliefs systems (the matrix of words in our
mind) which are bound to differ for all sorts of reasons: geographical,
cultural, historical or just personal preferences for the words. Those
'truths' are the source of our interpretations (of the "electrical signals
to our brain" input by the senses) with the jolly result of separate
mental realities we live in.
The problem (known as academic scholasticism, but you may also call it
fundamentalism:) starts when a dogmatic mind becomes 100% certain in HIS
'universal' truth--the truest of them all--and then starts preaching it,
i.e. decides to impose HIS reality upon the rest. Now we are ready for
your next question, you were not satisfied with mine "who knows where the
rabbit could hide", you wanted to know more as to why I prefer to "keep
alternatives around (you see it is you who wants more words:). The
'simple' answer is that we do not know yet, the 'complex' one is...
>> the only available alternative now to the evolution is
>> discarded. Instead, I prefer to discard nothing
> Discard nothing? Even if it is demonstrably untrue? Even if the
> proponents of the idea are liars and hucksters? Are you going to teach
> Nazi ideology in your schools? The divine right of Kings?
You mean "Nazi ideology" derived many 'useful' insights from Darwin's
evolution :), yes it did. It also praised rational science. {Exactly like
in the communist countries which (with few lucky exceptions) eradicated
religion or any rival thought to the Marxist dialectic materialism and
instead placed all (100%) their bets on science (on the wrong horse,
maybe:)} That was a cheap shot, now seriously.
Shall we agree first that your mention of the "Nazi ideology" was a purely
rhetoric device? It is hard for me to see where from did you derive the
implication, it is in fact contrary to what I was saying all along. I
wasn't banning all in favour of just one "ideology", if anything I was
defending plurality and "peaceful coexistence of ideas".
Whereas, the guy in question was intolerant, in fact soon after he seized
power his propaganda emerged 'naturally' as the only fittest survivor
(only mass media). That is, he imposed his dream (vision of reality) by
first suppressing all rival sources of words (media:) including a tight
grip on religion. He tolerated religion only to the extent that it fit his
pseudo 'evolutionist' (what a coincidence:) plan for fittest survival of
His most favourite race.
The problem is that theologists are usually extremely sensitive to the
words and are allowed (by law:) to speak in public (in their
churches). And if a religious priest happens to be a true believer ready to
defend his spiritual matrix, then he might spoil the Creations of the Nazi
propaganda. Therefore, independent religious thinkers were a potential
threat, here is a brilliance of Hitler's carrots and sticks:
No one in Germany has hitherto been persecuted for his
=======> religious views, nor will any one be persecuted on that
(carrot) account! ... The National Socialist State has neither closed
any church nor prevented any service from being held, nor has
it ever influenced the form of a church service. It has neither
interfered with the doctrinal teaching nor with the creed of
any denomination.
======> But the National Socialist State will ruthlessly make clear to
(stick) those clergy who, instead of being God's ministers, regard it
their mission to speak insultingly of our present Reich, its
organization or its leaders, that no one will tolerate a
destruction of this State and that a clergy that places itself
beyond the pale of the law will be called to account before the
law like any other German citizen.
Let it be mentioned, however, that there are tens of thousands
of clergy of all Christian denominations who fulfil their
ecclesiastical duties just as well or probably better than the
political agitators, without ever coming into conflict with the
carrot==> laws of the State. The State considers their protection its
stick==> task. The destruction of the enemies of the State is its duty
Adolf Hitler: "My new order",
Speech at the Reichstag, January 30, 1939.
{Then his propaganda planted in them the motto: "Do not think but know!"
(or literally "You are not allowed to think, you are allowed to
know!"). Meaning "his people" should accept his commands without
"thinking", his truth was to be known.
"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."
- Adolf Hitler, In Politics/Nazism }
Bare in mind that it didn't prevent him to see himself as the "Almighty
Creator" and a "true Christian", go figure (now you tell me whether he
counts as a "religious fundamentalist":).
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator... Hitler: "His Fight"
In 1920 in this same hall I announced as the most important
point in our program the demand for the unity of all
Germans. That goal has now been reached. Tremendous,
unbelievable events have taken place since then. ... Many of
the questions raised in our program have already been
solved. Today the Jewish question is no longer a German
problem, but a European one. ... We are the first nation to
make the ingenuity and industry of our people the basis of our
prosperity. If the positive element of Christianity is love of
one's neighbour, that is, caring for the sick, clothing the
poor, feeding the hungry and quenching the thirst of the
====> parched, then we are true Christians! For in these respects the
people's community of National Socialist Germany has tremendous
accomplishments to its credit
Hitler: "My New Order", Speech at Munich, February 24, 1939
http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb3.13.html
Now you tell me was he a Christian and was it his "religious
fundamentalism" to blame for whatever he did? One may just as well say
that it was his "evolutionist fundamentalism" to blame (The "purification"
of the "Aryan race" at the expense of the "lower human types", the
"monstrosities halfway between man and ape"
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm).
Or maybe both:), he synthesised the 'best' of both strands (in the
literature:), in fact he would use any means of 'eloquence' ("The ability
to persuade others by using the arts of language") and rhetoric to win the
credulous hearts and minds of the gullible public opinion. Now back to
your question of why I like to keep alternatives alive:
> Discard nothing? Even if it is demonstrably untrue? Even if the
> proponents of the idea are liars and hucksters?
The problem word above is "demonstrably", for instance could you
demonstrate for me that God doesn't exist?
At first it sounds easy, doesn't it, and I remember last August people in
sci.skeptic tried to prove it, it was such a fun. Their 'life signs'
exhibited the usual pattern: starting with confident enthusiasm (or
passion:) until the 'truth' hit them: the proof of "zero gods" was rather
difficult indeed. "The proponents of the (absolute zero) idea" weren't
exactly "liars and hucksters" but more like the laughing stock, their
notions of formal logic, Huxley and agnosticism happened to be "untrue",
or less true than they initially thought. Even the word 'logic' started to
shake, it turned out less 'objective', let alone 'impartial' :).
{If you are curious you may check threads like, "zero godz", "the count:
zero gods and zero ETs so far", "Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_"(it was Bob
or Septic, a funny guy though he believed his truth, blindly:),
"Fact:there are no gods in evidence" (neither was there evidence for the
reverse, the "zero godz":), "What is a PROOF of God for Septic?", "the
god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof" (attack), "the god-boys
keep ... evolution" (counter attack:)}
RESPONSIBILITY, n. A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of
God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the
days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a
star.
The devil's dictionary
The profound realization from those virtual wars of words was that the
burden of proof was rather heavy indeed, consequently everyone tried to
"shift it to the shoulders of one's neighbor": atheists wanted to see
FIRST the evidence that there is God in order to believe (lack of such
evidence was a good reason to reject Him with 100% confidence:); theists,
on the other hand insisted on seeing FIRST the evidence that there is no
God.
{It resembled a children's game of "you show me yours first then I show
you mine", only now played on a slightly more abstract level; like for
example a fight for whose "hypothesis" should be taken as the "null"-the
default.}
Their argument was that since atheist Septic was the first to make the
affirmative statement "There is no god", the burden of proof lies on his
shoulders if he wants us to believe it. Some hesitant attempts were made
but then that defensive strategy was quickly abandoned in favour of the
'aggressive' one (i.e. shifting the burden:). The problem was again
Choice: "Both possibilities are feasible -- i.e., neither accepting nor
rejecting the Axiom yields a contradiction. When we accept or reject the
Axiom, we are specifying which universe we shall work in." (see Axiom of
Choice in the appendix:)
Alas, some statements are taken for granted in any model of words,
completely self-contained (informationally consistent) theories seems
impossible, some basic axioms (or words) are taken for granted (outside of
the model), like the scientific method, 'independence', the whereabouts of
reality and even the Nature of the Designer and the existence of God. The
choice on these fundamental words in any belief system (matrix of words)
is a matter of faith and personal preferences for the words and that is my
answer to your question
> Where does the faith come in?
When "religious fundamentalists" reject (without proof) the evolution with
absolute certainty it is a matter of faith: when "scientific
fundamentalists" (the designers of rejection tests especially when applied
to rival alternatives:) reject God with dead certainty it is again a
matter of faith. Absolute 'knowledge' seems infeasible, we can hardly
'know' anything for sure (again we choose to believe that we 'know'), the
scholastic 100% confidence is a hoax. That was the message of Huxley,
agnosticism and classic skepticism.
Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of
Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental
characteristic of Western science.
- Zuka, Gary in "The dancing Wu Li masters"
Best,
Ann
PS: Here is the promised mathematical digression, following your advice
we'll try
"a bit of basic maths"
and see how far we could get. I mean you've kindly invited me to elaborate
on that, an offer I can't refuse. :) (gales of laughter here:)... You did
me a big favour by giving me the opportunity to REPEAT my favourite
words. In case you didn't know the Word is the key to reality, first in
our mind ('within') and then... elsewhere.
Repetition
The more we repeat a word, the more real it becomes in our mind (take it
as a joke for now). In fact so 'real' that at one moment we may start
seeing it anywhere else in Nature. Such was the case with the virus, the
gene and their mighty predecessor - the Number; it started with a game and
then without noticing we accepted it for real and began to 'see' (and
write) it everywhere to the point that we are now virtual slaves to it.
Take for example the "natural", "whole" or "real" number Zero (those
adjectives that genius mathematicians give to them were meant to preclude
exactly these questions:), do you consider it indeed natural and "real" in
independent Nature outside? I'm trying to remember when was the last time
I've encountered the absolute zero or the totally empty set? Not easy.
I mean, the total zero of 0.000 000 000 000 000 00... and zeros 'forever'
till the end of 'infinity'? I am afraid, we cannot lie even to the
computer that there is such a 'real' number, the computer knows no
infinity. We have to define to the machine the smallest number, it may be
very small (like 0.000 000...another300zeros...001) but it won't be the
total zero.
The absolute round zero is an illusion and the same with the
'infinitesimal' (or Newtonian "fluxions"), they are 'continuous' products of
our wild imagination (i.e. imagining/repeating the process of convergence
forever), their reality is in our mindful head. Why is it so? Well, the
task is to find the key problem word (usually the most abstract and less
likely to be real) in the definition of zero from the previous paragraph.
The key words (actually a cunning symbol) there are: 'forever' and
'infinity'. Are they 'real', or do we believe them to be so? Is 'infinity'
part of our 'reality'? (I mean the one outside of our head:). Emmanuel
Kant was unwilling to accept the reality of the symbol, but many others
(the majority from both camps, even the spiritual one) seem to like it,
i.e. true believers in the 'eternal' word.
Officially Newton's calculus endorsed the indefinite symbol in the science
of mathematics but for a long time there was a stiff resistance by "finite
mathematicians". They wouldn't trust the word until Cauchy and company
(and Bolzano, Weierstrass, Cantor:) tricked us all 'proving' infinity by
tacitly assuming it: the endless word was surreptitiously embedded in the
definition of the universal set, i.e. taken as an Axiom (of Choice:).
Here is the clever introduction from an arbitrary book on set theory, can
you sense the cunning trick of infinity creeping in through the back door:
The concept SET appears in all branches of mathematics. Intuitively,
a set is any well-defined list or collection of objects, and will be
denoted by Capital Letters. The objects comprising the set are called
its 'elements' or 'members' and will be denoted by lower case
letters. We can specify a particular set either by actually listing
its members {when is it possible?}, or by specifying the properties
that characterize the elements in the set.
Sets can be finite or infinite. A set is finite if it consists of n
different elements, where n is some positive integer; otherwise a set
is infinite. In particular, a set with only one element is called a
'singleton set'.
{Nothing is left to chance in such introduction, even the usage of
'positive integer' instead of a 'natural number' may not be a coincidence;
e.g. if finite sets have n-natural number or elements, then continuing the
logic the infinite set should have infinity-unnatural number of elements,
an association to be avoided if we are to love 'infinity'. Otherwise we
may start asking questions.
That the infinite set is unnatural seems obvious to me. The 'finite sets'
are pretty much the only sets we can verifiably observe (or count in real,
i.e. finite time:) in independent Nature outside with modest amount of
imagination--we only need to imagine that there are two or more
independently identical people, trees or other 'objects' and then start
counting or proceed with the other algebraic manipulations (adding,
subtracting, multiplying them:). }
The last four lines show how the Creator said 'Be!' to the infinite
set. It is as easy as that, the Lord just said: "otherwise it 'Is'
infinite".
As to the scholastic rhetoric, notice the structure of the textbook:
pouring down with truth, a continuous flow of definitions, axioms and
later theorems and proofs. There was no place we could ask something or
open a discussion, it is meant to speak/ascertain the truth (and how
things are) not to QUESTion it. The authoritative language is designed to
preclude any questions, it teaches what "can be" and what "is" but never
says why IT IS and WHERE this infinite set IS. It just says "a set is" and
we start to imagine and forget the first honest line.
"The concept SET appears in all branches of mathematics"
and nowhere else in Nature (only in our textbooks, screens and brainy
heads). We forgot that simple first line (as we did with another honest
opening line: "In the beginning was the Word":) and started looking at the
world with the conceptual eyes of the set: counting the identical objects,
members and numbers of elements. We become accountants (although "Not
everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be
counted counts." Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton), the set
becomes part of us, of our reality.
And exactly in that blissful moment mathematicians (in their playful way:)
knock on our head with the wake up call:
The word 'SET' is real in all books of mathematics
Did you notice the difference from the original:
"The concept SET appears in all branches of mathematics"
Not that big, isn't it :) Two sentences with the same meaning 'only'
expressed with different words. And what a difference it makes! Maybe that
'only' is just 'everything', who knows. Maybe the impression words convey
is all that matters when deciding whether to accept them or not. Once we
accept the almighty 'set' all miracles become possible: infinities,
infinite real lines, infinitesimals, smooth convergence and continuity,
you name it, we can 'prove' existence of anything we like. But have we
indeed met
Infinity in Nature?
I mean, for real not just imagine it like the infinitely straight line
cutting the universe from one end to the other, and beyond :)
{It usually starts with the teacher who first drew the straight line on
the blackboard and said "Imagine!". And from then on we saw the line
everywhere: we see a finite drawing in a book and at once 'recognise' the
infinite "real line", even imagine the infinitely many infinitesimal
"real" numbers on it. Whereas in fact there are at most a FINITE number of
small (but not infinitesimal:) dots close to each other on the screen, but
the illusion is almost perfect.}
Anyway, scientists joined the noble quest for 'infinity', looking very hard
for it, still the honest among them "weren't sure" enough they'd found it,
couldn't 'see', 'feel', 'touch', 'smell' or 'taste' infinity:
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
:) and I'm not sure about the universe.
Albert Einstein
And indeed, can we be absolutely sure 'infinity' is real in the universe
(outside the mental universe of mathematics)? I mean, would you weigh the
probability of infinity in Nature to 100%, is the chance of
infinity-a-hoax equal to the absolute zero of 0.000...zeros.forever...000
percent? Or would we rather admit that we do not know and assign instead a
positive probability to the hoax event, a tiny chance of 0.001 percent but
bigger than total zero.
The golden rule of repetition was the key to reality of many other
abstract words like the 'right Pythagorean triangle', the perfectly round
'circle' and the irrational number 'pi', they all didn't exist in Nature
before a genius Creator said his "Be!" to them. Once we liked them,
enchanted by their divine properties (amazing theorems:) we wouldn't let
them go.
{Remember that even Plato towards the end of his life was seduced by the
"Beast" when he 'realized' that only "Numbers" had the ideal form of the
absolute Truth, i.e. he's finally found/recognised his "universals" in
Nature. Failing to observe that they and all counting 'operations' on them
were defined only in his head, that's where the 'addition' took place and
where the result of one 'tree' plus another identical 'tree' (1+1) lies.}
Once we liked them and accepted in our reality within (the matrix of words
in our mind) we started dreaming them everywhere, we constructed and
surrounded ourselves with those 'perfect' geometrical forms, the illusions
got finer and finer and started to look almost as real. Basically we are
stalking ourselves, "billions of people just living out their lives,
oblivious" (Agent Smith:).
While mathematicians play with their objects for fun and as an
intellectual challenge
{e.g. "According to press reports, the proof (of Ferma's last theorem),
which is yet to be published, is up to 1,000 pages in length and uses
intricate arguments from highly abstract areas of pure mathematics... As
Kenneth Ribet commented: Wiles' arguments are based on the most advanced,
most elaborate mathematics that exist in this field. The number of
mathematicians who can really understand the arguments would fit into a
conference room"}
it is also fair to say that they are in general honest with us as to the
whereabouts of their science. It is us who prefer to not listen but
instead believe in the infinitely continuous illusions. Here is a small
sample of their ringing bells:
The character of such mathematics and related areas of science
has led some commentators, scientists included, to speculate
that mathematics is not of the material world but of some
==> separate and mystic nether world.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/ferm-93.shtml
Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can
assure you mine are still greater.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are
==> not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality.
Albert Einstein
In effect, when we accept the Axiom of Choice, this means we
are agreeing to the convention that we shall permit ourselves
to use a choice function f in proofs, as though it "exists" in
some sense, even though we cannot give an explicit example of
it or an explicit algorithm for it.
Many different mathematical universes are possible. When we
accept or reject the Axiom of Choice, we are specifying which
universe we shall work in. Both possibilities are feasible --
i.e., neither accepting nor rejecting AC yields a
contradiction;
The "existence" of f -- or of any mathematical object, even the
number "3" -- is purely formal. It does not have the same kind
of solidity as your table and your chair; it merely exists in
==> the mental universe of mathematics.
http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html
Thus, "any mathematical object merely exists in the mental universe of
mathematics" and such is the case for all derivatives like, for example,
the probable theories of random chance (and 'even' the "Brownian motion",
I'm afraid, but if you are not convinced you can assail me with
questions:). They may be nice tools to play with, but it is even nicer to
be aware of their only, minor flaw.
Hank
> Hi Richard,
>
> nice to hear from you and prepare for a longer treatise :).
<SNIP>
I will admit this post was impressive in a way. It's one of the few times I've
pasted a message into MS Word to see how long it really was. It wasn't until the
bottom of the 5th page that the text finally managed to meander its way to the
point of the thread. (As a side note, IMO, that's not writing -- that's typing.)
That five pages of superfluous text probably fits Richard's description of "a load
of pseudo-intellectual drivel." It certainly would mine. Typing for fives pages
and not addressing the issue sets off a lot of warning bells around here.
But I digress. We finally get to:
> Intuitively, the "trouble of evolution as science" is that its proponents
> claim omnisciently long memory (a miracle beyond any comprehension), which
> then allows them to 'know' for sure (without even 1 percent of
> doubt/probability that the THEORY might be false) and then present that
> 'knowledge' as facts in the textbooks and computer animated TV
> 'documentaries'.
I agree that an "omnisciently long memory" is an unlikely quality to be held by any
human being. But I am unaware of any of evolution's "proponents" claiming such
supernatural powers.
(I presume that by "proponents" you include every biologist in the world; as well
as virtually every biology teacher from every elementary, junior high and high
school in the world; and every biology professor from every college and university,
worldwide? Also I presume you would include every person who has been sufficiently
educated to understand the basic science behind it all. I've left out the
geologists, physicists and others for simplicity's sake for the time being. Please
correct me if my understanding of "proponents" is not what you intended.)
As far as needing an "omnisciently long memory" to know something about evolution,
it's really quite unnecessary. What is first required is some familiarity with
what's called the scientific method. Nothing is accepted simply because it appears
intuitive, sensible, likely, logical, etc. Those things are certainly important
for starting the investigation. One must observe. One must have a valid
hypothesis that attempts to explain what has been observed. Included in that
hypothesis _must_ be a mechanism to test the hypothesis. In other words, it must
be falsifiable. (The word "falsifiable" is critical to the whole process.)
Also you should try to appreciate the way in which the word "theory" is used in
science. It's quite a different meaning than in common usage. A theory starts
with a valid hypothesis; but it must be backed up with a preponderance of evidence
before it can be called a theory. Thus, while I may hypothesize that "the moon is
made of green cheese," (which is a valid hypothesis since it's falsifiable) it
cannot ever be a theory since there is no evidence to support it (and in fact ample
evidence that falsifies it).
Now as far as this goes: "which then allows them to 'know' for sure (without even 1
percent of doubt/probability that the THEORY might be false) and then present that
'knowledge' as facts in the textbooks and computer animated TV 'documentaries'."
First, you confuse fact with theory. The observations that result in an
overwhelming body of evidence for a given conclusion are the facts. For example,
there is an overwhelming body of evidence such that we accept gravity as a fact.
The theory behind it is our attempt to use the scientific method (observation,
hypothesis, falsification, etc) to explain the mechanism behind the fact, or if you
will, the mechanism that drives the observations.
That species evolve over time is backed up by such a preponderance of evidence that
it has been considered an established fact for over a hundred years. As many in
this newsgroup will relate, nothing in biology makes any sense without evolution.
However, the theory behind it (and there are a number of theories involved in
evolution, not just one) is science's "best guess," if you will, of the mechanisms
that drive evolution.
Thus it is quite incorrect to state that "... without even 1 percent of
doubt/probability that the THEORY might be false." Actually, any biologist will
tell you that the theory(ies) very well could be inaccurate. However, at this
time, they are backed up by the preponderance of evidence. But as more discoveries
are made, (i.e., more evidence is collected) these theories can be modified over
time if necessary.
Your writing so far (and you'll forgive me if I stop here) reveals that you have
some fundamental misunderstandings of evolutionary biology. There are quite a
number of common misconceptions related to evolution. I would suggest that you
read some of the material at the Talk.Origins archive web site to come up to speed
on what evolution is really about. Start with the FAQs - they provide convenient
links to some "must-read" introductory material. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
But I must address one more thing below:
> Also, if evolution is an atheist religion, why to the majority of
> the world's Christians, let alone adherents to other religions, have
> no problem in accepting it as sound science?
> sci.Richard
>
> The answer is quite obvious, actually, and it was provided in the
> "relevant" place. The phenomenon has many names, some of them are State
> religion, Holy Textbook, TV, you name it, they all go under the collective
> heading of 'propaganda' -- the same thing we are engaged now, in this very
> moment:)
I must say that I take offense to this mischaracterization, however unintentional
it might be. I am a Christian. That is my faith. My faith is metaphysical, thus
it is not measurable in any way, and it does not conflict with science. I find it
highly offensive that you verbally wave your hand to dismiss my religion and that
of hundreds of millions of other Christians as 'propaganda.' I sincerely hope that
your own religious beliefs do not include contempt for other religions. That was
the impression conveyed.
But then, if it was inadvertant, then "no prob." :-)
Ann
enjoyed thy post, you're obviously a tolerant person. Thus, welcome to
the journey round my mental universe and thanks for giving me the
opportunity to s-p-e-a-k:
Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It
springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is
the image of the parents of it, the mind. No glass so mirrors
a man's form or likeness so true as his speech.
Benjamin Jonson
Wasn't he a jolly fellow this Ben (1572-1637, comic playwright and poet),
anyway at one place I sensed how remnants of the 'scientific' method
"sprung out of the most retired and inmost parts of thy mind", i.e. how
you first spotted the 'weakest' points in my arguments and then applied
maximum pressure; which is, of course, what we 'all' do :) Now the quick
answer to your most pressing question is that you guessed right "that my
own religious beliefs do not include contempt for other religions", there
was no "offence" intended neither with the word 'proponents' nor with
'propaganda', not even with the 'evolution' itself, go figure :)
And in return I too "sincerely hope" that it was merely an over-reaction
when "you found it highly offensive that I verbally wave my hand to
dismiss your religion and that of hundreds of millions of other Christians
as propaganda", for I didn't. Once upon a time (last August in
sci.skeptic) I even elaborated on that (i.e. defended Him) by
'establishing' (not so difficult actually:) that Jesus was a bright soul
(what if, of the brightest that have walked on this Earth) who
left/transmitted many messages, taught us many lessons; and we still have
to do our homework.
{Meaning and if you look around: his sacrifice for our sins did not
eradicate them, even worse (that was exemplified in the last post to
Richard) some despotic minds (in fact, real dictators:) even used his name
for their purposes. That is, we haven't LEARNT that much in the following
two thousand years, apart from fixing in his name some dates as public
holidays in which to regularly "drink his blood and eat his flesh"--the
legacy of Aristotle. I mean, the 'predatory' logic of the "mad
philosopher" did quite a 'good' job even in this domain. The adjective
"mad" was borrowed from the Devil's dictionary definition of
"REALITY: The dream of a mad philosopher. That which would remain in the
cupel if one should assay a phantom. The nucleus of a vacuum." }
Back then the 'finding' was (based on the "preponderance of the
overwhelming body of evidence":) that Jesus was a historical personality
who had a life. You see, I did not "dismiss" him (neither his message nor
what he did) in any way like many scientists would do (even in some
'objective' dictionaries) by declaring he was a "mythical personality"
(relying on the impression of something fictitiously unreal that the word
'myth' conveys). I wonder where from did you derive the words "dismiss
your faith and religion"; indeed, I dared suggest that the discussion with
Richard was leaning towards the usual rhetoric of 'propaganda', but not
"your faith or religion". And if anything, throughout the thread and even
in the very letter you replied to ("that five pages of superfluous text",
remember:) I said I prefer to "keep alternatives around and discard
nothing", "dismiss" nothing without 'proof'.
{Provided the proof were at all possible, i.e. if the objective word
'proof' was real.}
As to my usage of the word 'propaganda' it has a clear explanation: I used
it because I chose to, that is how I saw our debate WITH Richard. It was
my point of view on our exchange of 'compliments' with him (which he later
went on confirming:) plus note another 'fine' detail that (I confess:) I
should have specified much earlier: 'propaganda' was written inside single
quotes, which I do either when I refer to the Word itself :) or when using
it in a metaphorical sense (second or figurative meaning). Quotations
instead are inside double quotes like "dismiss" or properly left
indented. You couldn't know, of course, of those stylistic peculiarities
of mine, although I was trying to be consistent as in:
>> 'propaganda' -- the same thing we are engaged now, in this very
>> moment:)
which you shouldn't forget came as a most 'natural' response to the
rhetoric accusation that "I're preaching" [when claiming that the
Evolutionary Process itself was less tangible and more "abstract" than
some have initially thought, i.e. (borrowing from that Axiom of Choice
website with regard to numbers) that its "existence -- or of any
mathematical object, even the number "3" -- was purely formal. It does not
have the same kind of solidity as your table and your chair; it merely
exists in the mental universe of mathematics" and modern biology, and many
many books.]
Can you feel already why or when the word 'propaganda' might be
unavoidable in a discussion?
It will happen when opinions and views of the world differ by a wide
margin, for then it will be difficult for both sides to agree on a strict
definition of a 'proper' (as opposed to rhetoric) discussion. For example,
one re-emerging bone of contention has been the word 'evidence', how do we
define it? Do we and should we rely on the scientific method in the
derivation of the definition? I mean, do we have to :)
Why, is it the only "valid" method of inquiry? If you ask me, the evidence
I ultimately trust is my life, my personal experience. The rest are the
'objective' words (documented proofs) of others, their 'impartial'
experiences. And if there is a lesson my experience have taught me it is
that 'absolute' views of the world are generally relative, experiences and
'independent' interpretations thereof differ widely. Isn't it safer
whenever and whatever people tell us to "discard nothing", in particular,
to keep the probability of it being not true positive; and
in case of doubt trust thyself.
(until the arrival of further evidence, that is:) Isn't it a cunning Word
this Serpent, I mean, what is an "overwhelming body of evidence" to some
is to others a "drivel", i.e. "dismissed as a superfluous text". While I
was thinking I was providing proof after proof, one more rigorous than the
other, Richard 'saw' it differently (a "pseudo-intellectual drivel":).
{(Digression into randomness) Which is perhaps why I should start
formulating my 'results' as theorems, then someone might finally "get the
point" or just grasp the "preponderance of evidence". A tentative attempt
will be made at the end where I deliver a rigorous proof of 'In the
Beginning of Chance was Choice' thereby crushing that stubborn pillar of
modern sciences--randomness in Nature. I've done it once already, if you
remember Hayward's Unabridged definition of
Random Number, n. In computer science, the output of a deterministic
algorithm carefully designed to produce output according
to a specific distribution, deemed far too important to
leave to chance.
In the appendix I shall 'extend' the scope of the definition (now limited
only to "computer science") to include any 'randomness' anywhere in Nature
(but in fact only reorder the words slightly differently to see the
effect:). Basically, the theory of chance saved the day of Sciences (not
just the evolution), in the beginning of the last century many branches
were facing 'virtual' failure, were about to collapse when they were given
a hand by random probability. And then instead of saying 'We do not know'
(why some mutate, others conceive and only sometimes but third cannot, why
whites give birth to a black child, "when did 'time' begin, and where does
'space' end?"...)
Song of Childhood ("Wings of Desire")
When the child was a child,
It was the time of these questions:
Why am I 'me', and why not 'you'?
Why am I 'here', and why not 'there'?
When did 'time' begin, and where does 'space' end?
Is life under the sun not just a dream?
Is what I see and hear and smell
not just an illusion of a world before the world?
Given the facts of evil and people.
does 'evil' really exist?
How can it be that I, who I am,
didn't exist before I came to be,
and that, someday, I, who I am,
will no longer be who I am?
, instead of confessing they 'knew' not the answer medics, biologists,
physicists, ... started using the magic phrase 'Chances are...'. Like:
Chances are 30:70 you'll catch the v-i-r-u-s, but once you do chances are
90:10 you won't survive it :) And what's the point of this "risk"
awareness, how does this 'knowledge' help: it merely allowed them to say
something 'deep' instead of admitting the obvious. Which is... Now back to
the 'evidence' of 'propaganda' }
And vice versa, while Richard thought he was making a factual point, I
'saw' him 'shooting' empty cliches like: "preaching", "Nazi ideology",
"demonstrably untrue", "liars and hucksters", "anti-libertarianist",
"danger", "power and agenda of religious fundamentalists", and even the
sacred "educational standards" (by say, making it not a choice but
compulsory that each and every schoolchild in this country should be
versed in the intricacies of mathematics from an earliest age; even if
politicians themselves aren't it can't be wrong, can it, for everyone is
saying it; so it must right then! end of proof:) -- to me these were
'bullets' engaging him (and me:) in a rhetoric war of words of
'propaganda',
Propaganda
Having said that I guess I owe you some more words on the mysterious
("metaphorical") meaning of propaganda I referred to above. In short,
'propaganda' did not refer to your belief system or "faith" (but more to
the conversation we're having with somebody else, or if you like more
generally to State textbooks and TV 'documentaries' bearing the imprint of
scholasticism. I neither "dismiss your metaphysical faith", nor do I
discard "your religion and that of hundreds of millions of other
Christians", because I choose to believe that it is our fundamental human
right: we are free to believe whatever we want to believe. And we owe no
one an explanation for that :)
This is our personal right and freedom to do whatever we like with the
words, concepts and ideas in our mind, the freedom to choose our preferred
separate reality in the backyard of our mind (or the matrix of words in
our subconscious; one quixotic task is to become conscious of the 'axioms'
and basic building blocks hiding there:). By the nature of human variety
and 'bio-diversity' of preferences those parallel realities differ widely
from person to person, from region to region, from epoch to epoch and from
culture to culture (and from one animal to another, or should we rather
"dismiss" the "lower" ones as unimportant or "pseudo-intellectual":).
Propaganda for me starts when some 'genius' individuals decide that their
truth is the truest one and then start a war of words (verbal or beyond:)
with the infidels, trying to impose their version of reality on everyone
else, under the 'benevolent' pretext of 'educating the ignorant',
'enlightening', 'saving the World' (from "fundamentalism", go figure:),
'doing the best for mankind' (their "best" though, their 'objective' and
highly 'impartial' definition of BEST:) and for any other reasonable
reason ("weighed in their scales of desire":).
That is, to me 'propaganda' begins when we are not content with keeping
the 'truth' for ourselves but attempt to 'share' it at all costs; when we
by means of rhetoric, eloquence 'and' plain words (sometimes coupled with
force of law:) try to persuade or just convert the 'infidels'. And (you
failed to appreciate my 'suicidal' honesty here) which, upon sober
observation, was exactly what I was also doing, so I decided to admit
instead of defending the indefensible.
You may ask yourself what was I 'propagating', what was my truth?
It has many names but the jolly content remains unchanged like a
"universal constant": variety, "biodiversity", "peaceful coexistence of
ideas" and visions, anti-dogmatism (or classical skepticism: the
"undecided, inquiring state of mind; universal doubt; critical
investigation or inquiry, as opposed to the positive assumption or
assertion of certain principles" - quote from Webster unabridged that
appeared earlier this month in the sci.skeptic thread "Darwin was full of
crap"; it wasn't me who gave its title, though:).
As you notice I've just committed a virtual suicide, i.e. 'propagated'
that I shouldn't be 'propagating', asserted that we cannot assert with
absolute certainty :), endorsed parallel coexistence of mental universes,
encouraged independent thinking and tolerance to rival ideas (including
rival to mine:), in effect saying: do not listen to what I say. And why
should I do such a thing, what's the point of this "controlled folly"
(Castaneda's term)? One 'definitive' answer was provided by the Sturdy
Beggar Appreciation Society:
With all of us not knowing what we are, or where we stand, we,
beggars and members alike, thus achieve an unparalleled
equality. An equality that many have fought and died for. An
equality...dare we say it three times fast...an equality of
unequivocal quality unequaled in the quantum quests and queries of
quixotic quipsters.
http://www.mudshow.com/_SBAS.htm
, which can be summarised under the collective heading of
Word crushing
It is based on the shocking realization that words are not to be trusted,
that contrary to popular opinions their 'true' meanings (and images for
them in our head) are not universal but subjective and generally relative.
And you too provided a documented proof for that, you know how? When you
first found my other 'weak' point--a seemingly innocent paragraph, which
for whatever reason attracted the bulk of your skeptic attention--and then
virtually tore it apart. You dissected it into its basic components, every
'unfortunate' letter and word there underwent ruthless scrutiny until it
dissolved to its most natural state - of that being just a word.
Such was the poor fate of 'proponent', 'omniscient', 'long memory' and
even of the factual 'theory', you redefined and subsequently crushed them
in our mind, they became less real there (though I'm not sure about
'elsewhere':). Which is also what I and others do, my message being that
we can do the same with just about any word, not only with the ones we do
not like :)
What is a 'proponent'?
was one of the important questions you tried to investigate :) Any sharp
eye could easily verify that the word 'proponent' is just a word, once we
examine it under the 'microscope' it starts shaking. For instance,
according to Webster and WordNet
a proponent is: one who makes a proposal or lays down a proposition;
a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea
[syn: advocate].
Of course, it is hard to find a universal 'proponent', it may just as well
be an illusion, i.e. the same person who made the proposal may easily
change his mind tomorrow. When pressed people often change positions and
opinions even from one moment to the next, and in fact there is no need to
"propound an idea" at all costs (i.e. to the bitter end:). And so it
happened that the 'tiny' word (or 'bait', 'virus') I coined'
--'proponents'-- unleashed your imagination and the rest is history:
the Word exploded, expanding at an exponential rate (like the universe of
words in our mind and ever thicker dictionaries:), as if you obeyed the
universal 'law of large numbers' and concentrated exclusively on the
Number of proponents. Thus, you "presumed that by 'proponents' I include
every biologist in the world" (was nice to learn, but wasn't enough as it
seems:), then added to it "virtually every biology teacher from every
elementary, junior high and high school in the world; and every biology
professor from every college and university, worldwide" and all of a
sudden the 'monstrous' word was everywhere, assumed gigantic proportions.
Which, basically, was your way of crushing it. It wasn't my way, though
you had the right to make the "valid hypothesis" ("science's best
guess":), it is the way we infer the meanings of the words implied by
others (starting usually from ourselves and then generalising by valid
induction).
{Digression into induction (Webster)
Induction: The act or process of reasoning from a part to a whole, from
particulars to generals, or from the individual to the
universal; also, the result or inference so reached.
Induction is an inference drawn from all the particulars.
--Sir W. Hamilton.
Induction is the process by which we conclude that what is true
of certain individuals of a class, is true of the whole class,
or that what is true at certain times will be true in similar
circumstances at all times. --J. S. Mill.
Inferences are a shrewd application of the Aristotelian method of
induction from the particular 'proponent' to the general "presumption",
and that is how he 'established' (for all times:) that the "lower animals"
were less "intelligent" and 'therefore' should ascend to the highest
ladder--rational Man (or the "social animal", another of his "political
science" words). He 'just' presumed it and many other things, the way to
make a 'valid' statement. "Valid" to whom? What is "valid"?
Backed by "evidence", perhaps? And again, what is evidence? To whom? }
To summarise my take on what you did: picked up the following paragraph
(perhaps the one that "set off" the most "warning bells") from "that five
pages of superfluous text"
>> Intuitively, the "trouble of evolution as science" is that its
>> proponents claim omnisciently long memory (a miracle beyond any
>> comprehension), which then allows them to 'know' for sure (without even
>> 1 percent of doubt/probability that the THEORY might be false) and then
>> present that 'knowledge' as facts in the textbooks and computer
>> animated TV 'documentaries'.
and then placed it under the microscope and annihilated it, made it
explode like a supernova. Which came to no surprise, exactly this skeptical
procedure we can apply to any paragraph and word. My favourite is the
opening paragraph of the Aristotelian "Metaphysics" when the 'Godfather'
defined the path: "ALL men by nature desire to know. ... with the most
delightful sense of sight" (forgot to remind us to think, though; and what
was there to be "known" became clear later: his words:). A scholastic
master of words made a general inference for "ALL men" with absolute
confidence (perhaps by induction, he "desired" so why not "ALL").
Anyway, your post was a nice example of a general procedure of "crushing
words". Somewhere around this time last year I summarised my findings
(posted in the alt.dreams.castaneda group) in a "theory of words", which
includes "the observations that resulted in an overwhelming body of
evidence for the conclusion" that the Word could be the "splinter in our
mind driving us mad" (that Morpheus talked about in "The Matrix"). If we
want to free our mind the next question may be, from what?
Freedom from the Word is like making all words shake and eventually
appear/feel less real, and all this only in our mind. I have even derived
some general rules and developed word-crushing techniques (some of which I
applied on you, I'm afraid:), one wittier than the other. Of course, it is
a work in progress, but the main trick seems to be to view the Word, any
word, as just what it is (or for example, we may view the word as a walnut
to be cracked:). The basic principle I've discovered is that of
attraction-repulsion, making the 'good' word 'bad' and vice versa until we
finally reach detachment: that sober balance in the middle (of the Garden
of Eden:) resulting from suspending judgement (abstaining from the sweet
fruit of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil":).
Best,
Ann
PS: The abrupt end to the treatise is followed by the promised theorem.
Appendix:
Chance or Choice?
Is randomness a product of pure chance or a quasi-random choice, that is
the question of choice now--in the very moment I am typing those words :)
Theorem (On the impossibility of randomness without choice):
The factual theory of chance is a product of choice.
Proof: The proof is so obvious (an application of the Axiom of Choice)
that it is not needed; yet it is attached for completeness of the
exposition, for the sake of appearances. It starts with a simple
realization: when we claim something (like that a mutation happens
at random) it is no chance coincidence. It is us who write, type
and speak, our "speech springing out of the inmost parts of our
mind", and it is 'even' us who choose to believe our assertion :)
No one forces us to, and we are not born with our beliefs, we
acquire them in the process of social 'education'. When we were a
baby and a little child we 'knew' and 'believed' nothing, we were
void of words (wordless, speechless and Logosless or
Logos-empty:).
{The 'evidence' for that comes with personal experience (again the
introvert "know thyself") i.e. when we remember oursouls. Please,
try the flight on the wings of soul memory, it is far from
impossible. And does not require "fundamental understanding of
evolutionary biology", may not need any external "support from a
number of evolving theories or science's best guesses", may not be
helped by our "appreciating the way" of the "scientific method"
with its "valid hypothesis", "backed up by the preponderance of
evidence" with "critical falsifiable mechanisms" built into it; we
won't even need an 'omnisciently long memory', go figure.}
It was us who decided to "play dice" and look at Nature through
the spectacles of probability, we invented also the word
'randomness' and all examples of stochastic processes and "normal"
distributions, the theory of chance was the product of choice of
its Creators and it remained the theory of choice for their
followers.
When we believe in the theory of chance it is because we choose
so, in that paradoxical sense in the beginning of chance is again
choice. Next we may choose to forget that early choice and remain
'forever' in the mental universe of randomness, if anything we
learned that it might be feasible:). A mutation in this (chosen:)
universe of chance is at once 'recognised' as a clear, random
manifestation of the Evolutionary Process.
By the same token, when we refuse to believe in the theory of
chance it is again our choice. Then we either say that we do not
know (humility:) or else enter the mental universe of
pre-determinedness where everything happens for a reason, for a
cause, for the why. When we observe a 'mutation', i.e. a totally
unexpected event, we then say that it was God's will {shouldn't be
excluded for we still couldn't reject His existence with
confidence, and of course, when he exists we would expect Him to
also take charge of the "Origin", Genesis and Creation and not
just stand by and watch the Process}. Or we say that it was
Nature's will or even that of a Supreme Reasoning Being (other
than us). We could even say that the 'mutation' was a result of a
sub-conscious choice by the soul of the 'mutant', again it will be
no chance coincidence. Nothing is left to chance in this mental
universe of certain causes.
These are just two extreme universes (but in fact prisons for our
mind:) which we may visit and even choose to dwell in (permanent
fixation); though we do not have to, we may as well admit that we
do not know for sure and choose to balance somewhere in-between,
waiting for arrival of the "overwhelming body of evidence". For so
far, the "preponderance of evidence" has been inconclusive, "many
different mental universes are possible. When we accept or reject
the Axiom of Chance, we are specifying which universe we shall
work in. Both possibilities are feasible -- i.e., neither
accepting nor rejecting AC yields a contradiction".
We may either view 'mutations' ('random' facts) as a product of
random chance or as a certain product of a definitive cause (or
choice of some internal or external entity). In either case,
however, our belief and point of view is determined by our
choice. Therefore, in the beginning of chance was choice.
QED (End of proof:).
Ian Braidwood
Hello Ann,
I'd just like to make a few comments about your post.
> Hi Richard,
>
> a professional (expert:) intervention raises the entertainment value of
> any discussion, makes it amusing and more lively.
Is this what you're doing here, amusing yourself? If so, I hope I'm
poor fare, if not then you may learn from people; assuming you have
courage enough to allow the transformation.
> Moreover, the questions
> you pose touch on the very basis of the scientific method: scholastic
> wording coupled with its major axiom/assumption -- the objective
> observation, testing and verification of one and only independent reality
> outside.
>
> { The modern versions and refinements of the assumption are disguised under
> various forms, like (perhaps your favourite:) the so called "uniformity of
> Nature".
>
> Just a reminder, the Aristotelian assumption was challenged by Einstein
> when it turned out that 'absolute' space-time is an illusion of our
> imperfect eyesight, "there was no force of gravity but a byproduct of
> the warping of space-time", 'space' (and maybe the One Truth) was
> "generally relative" depending on the point of view and so was 'time',
> which turned out to slow down as we move--the faster we travel the
> longer we live, go figure.
Your position here isn't as good as you like to think. The meaning of
the word objective that you claim Einstien undermined isn't the one
scientists claim for their branch of study. Whatsmore, Relativity
doesn't weaken your version of scientific objectivity, but strengthen
it.
The word objective is used in two quite distinct ways. One, to denote
a reality outside of our mind and the other to claim that what is
studied is studied without allowing emotion or previous opinion to
colour our perceptions. An objective can also be a goal, but that
isn't relevent to this discussion.
Your claim that General Relativity undermines the first type of
objectivity would be justifiable only if the various versions of truth
observed from different locations were arbitary. However, this is not
so, because using the Fitzgerald-Lorentz the various truths can be
reconciled; ie: they are commensurate with one another and do not
really contradict.
This is because Einstein insisted that the laws of nature should be
the same for every observer, so while relativity does violence to
naive ideas of geometry, it preserves the lawful nature of our world.
The lesson of Relativity isn't that there is no objective reality, but
that there are no privileged observers.
> A more recent blow to the 'objective' axiom
> was inflicted by social sciences and quantum mechanics experiments,
> which turned out to be anything but 'independent' of the researcher and
> his goal, I wonder what if this independence turns out impossible, or
> real only in our mind.
To be honest, I give very little weight to the pronouncements of
social scientists - in fact, I question the validity of the name. I am
always dubious of people whose opinions I hear independently of their
justifications.
In my opinion, Quantum Theory doesn't undermine objectivity any more
than Relativity. Okay, it has demolished the idea of the independent
observer, but it does show clearly that while single interactions do
seem to be truely random, statisitical methods can be used to describe
phenomena to a very high degree of accuracy and so, lawfulness rises
once more.
> Einstein shattered the foundations of science and that is why he seems not
> to be liked by his colleagues (though respected, praised and so on:).
I don't know where you get this idea that Einstein wasn't like by his
contemporarys. Of course, there were disagreements, but that is normal
within science. Also, Newton was a far more arguementative person than
Einstein ever was.
> His
> theory was incompatible with Newton's mechanics of the "absolute space"
> (i.e. made him a laughable special case:)
Certainly, Newtonian physics is a special case, though using the word
laughable is unjustified. Engineers use the Newtonian model all the
time, because it is a very good approximation which is easy to apply.
Understand this, Newton insisted on the idea of absolute time and
space, because he realised that a relativistic picture would allow no
privileged observers. Newton was a religious man (he estimated the
birth of the universe to have been in 3988BC) and for him there had to
be at least one privileged observer: God.
Here is a very good example of how religious preconceptions have
mislead science and why scientists aspire to objectivity in the second
sense.
> and what do we read in our
> physics textbooks - Newton and his "mysterious force". Einstein's
> relativity (i.e. "There is no force!":) is postponed for high-school and
> university, because you see it were very complex. The reason though is
> different, it 'merely' undermines the roots of the scientific method,
> makes also the other sciences a very special case to reality. }
I don't agree that undermining the idea of absolute time and space
also undermines the idea of an objective reality.
> The 'objective' illusion comes from the most famous "lover of sights"
> Aristotle and indeed (as you perhaps feel:) at least two major religions
> fell into his trap (went out of their minds). And proclaimed the word
> 'God' an independent (of our mind), external entity, just as the Godfather
> of Sciences' names (Aristotle) wanted them to. I mean, that was the
> cunning point of his substitute word 'Nature' (we are part of Nature, but
> when we explore, research, experiment, dissect Nature we tend to
> concentrate on outside). Later on other deep thinkers ashamed of the word
> 'God' created additional words 'worth' worshipping and preaching like
> 'Evolution', 'Evolutionary Process' or anything else that sounds beautiful
> (e.g. Supreme Reasoning Power) and could fill the void and give us the
> 'purpose' of our existence.
I think you've missed or are ignoring a very real difference in the
way concepts of God and scientific theories are used.
When something is explained in terms of God, it is by His will. He
makes a choice and things turn out one way, if He'd chozen
differently, then things would be different. Thus, the explanation
doesn't really tell you anything about the phenomenon in question.
With a scientific explanation, reference is made to cause and effect.
The cause is not seated in arbitary will, but in the nature of the
causal agent. At the quantum level this appears to break down, yet our
understanding of the quantum world is so good that we can use
something inherantly unpredicable like radioactive decay to make our
most accurate clocks.
Thus terms like 'evolutionary process' are not synonymous with 'God's
will', because they refer to something which is understood and
therefore specific, whereas God is ineffable and arbitary.
> Basically that was the reason why eventually religion lost the rhetoric
> battle with science for the hearts and minds of the gullible public
> opinion and replaced it in our schools as the (next in a row) universal
> dogma. And that is also what gives you the 'righteous' feeling of inner
> strength and confidence whenever you find yourself arguing with a
> 'clergymen'. Because without noticing they were tricked into accepting
> your articles of faith--the scientific method--so the rest is easy, you
> can be almost sure you would silence them with a couple of precise
> remarks.
May I ask you what makes you think you're so superior to the 'gullible
public'?
I ask because you seem - like most religious zealots - to want to
decry what our children are taught in the classroom and seem to
propose the silly idea that all pictures of our universe are
equivalent. They are not and here's why:
Preachers for hundreds of years have threatened hell-fire and
damnation, but it was science which made it happen, science which made
the shadows on the streets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More banal is
the simple truth that when it comes to enlightenment, your local
electicity company has made a greater contribution than any deity.
There was no rhetorical battle over people's hearts and minds, they
just chose the explanation which worked over one that didn't.
(-: Ian :-)
Hank
> Hi Hank,
>
> enjoyed thy post, you're obviously a tolerant person. Thus, welcome to
> the journey round my mental universe and thanks for giving me the
> opportunity to s-p-e-a-k:
>
> Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It
> springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is
> the image of the parents of it, the mind. No glass so mirrors
> a man's form or likeness so true as his speech.
>
> Benjamin Jonson
>
> Wasn't he a jolly fellow this Ben (1572-1637, comic playwright and poet),
> anyway at one place I sensed how remnants of the 'scientific' method
> "sprung out of the most retired and inmost parts of thy mind", i.e. how
> you first spotted the 'weakest' points in my arguments and then applied
> maximum pressure; which is, of course, what we 'all' do :) Now the quick
> answer to your most pressing question is that you guessed right "that my
> own religious beliefs do not include contempt for other religions", there
> was no "offence" intended neither with the word 'proponents' nor with
> 'propaganda', not even with the 'evolution' itself, go figure :)
>
Then we have no problem in that respect.
>
> And in return I too "sincerely hope" that it was merely an over-reaction
> when "you found it highly offensive that I verbally wave my hand to
> dismiss your religion and that of hundreds of millions of other Christians
> as propaganda", for I didn't.
Forgive my sensitivity to the topic. I’ve read from posters here who claim
that anyone who “believes” in evolution is an atheist. A couple of weeks ago,
one started a firestorm by equating Catholics to a cult, then made it worse by
adding more anti-Catholic statements. Posters descended on him like the
Visigoths. When the feeding frenzy finally subsided, the offending poster ran
off and hasn’t been seen since.
My (erroneous) perception was not that you were dismissing him, but that you
were dismissing my faith’s interpretation. Again, I see that was a
misperception on my part.
> And if anything, throughout the thread and even
> in the very letter you replied to ("that five pages of superfluous text",
> remember:) I said I prefer to "keep alternatives around and discard
> nothing", "dismiss" nothing without 'proof'.
>
> {Provided the proof were at all possible, i.e. if the objective word
> 'proof' was real.}
In a case like this, I tend to lean more towards the scientific method, at
least in those areas involving science.
>
> As to my usage of the word 'propaganda' it has a clear explanation: I used
> it because I chose to, that is how I saw our debate WITH Richard. It was
> my point of view on our exchange of 'compliments' with him (which he later
> went on confirming:) plus note another 'fine' detail that (I confess:) I
> should have specified much earlier: 'propaganda' was written inside single
> quotes, which I do either when I refer to the Word itself :) or when using
> it in a metaphorical sense (second or figurative meaning). Quotations
> instead are inside double quotes like "dismiss" or properly left
> indented. You couldn't know, of course, of those stylistic peculiarities
> of mine, although I was trying to be consistent as in:
>
> >> 'propaganda' -- the same thing we are engaged now, in this very
> >> moment:)
>
> which you shouldn't forget came as a most 'natural' response to the
> rhetoric accusation that "I're preaching" [when claiming that the
> Evolutionary Process itself was less tangible and more "abstract" than
> some have initially thought, i.e. (borrowing from that Axiom of Choice
> website with regard to numbers) that its "existence -- or of any
> mathematical object, even the number "3" -- was purely formal. It does not
> have the same kind of solidity as your table and your chair; it merely
> exists in the mental universe of mathematics" and modern biology, and many
> many books.]
>
> Can you feel already why or when the word 'propaganda' might be
> unavoidable in a discussion?
I see how you use the word. I wouldn’t use it that way myself, as the word can
also imply dishonesty or subterfuge. But that’s just our differences in
writing style, I suspect.
> It will happen when opinions and views of the world differ by a wide
> margin, for then it will be difficult for both sides to agree on a strict
> definition of a 'proper' (as opposed to rhetoric) discussion. For example,
> one re-emerging bone of contention has been the word 'evidence', how do we
> define it? Do we and should we rely on the scientific method in the
> derivation of the definition? I mean, do we have to :)
We have to if we’re going to discuss science. Science must make predictions
that are accurate and precise enough to be repeatable. When one person tests a
hypothesis he should get the same results as someone else using the same
procedures. When we build a rocket to take a person into space, it’s not good
enough to ‘almost’ get him there.
> Why, is it the only "valid" method of inquiry? If you ask me, the evidence
> I ultimately trust is my life, my personal experience. The rest are the
> 'objective' words (documented proofs) of others, their 'impartial'
> experiences. And if there is a lesson my experience have taught me it is
> that 'absolute' views of the world are generally relative, experiences and
> 'independent' interpretations thereof differ widely. Isn't it safer
> whenever and whatever people tell us to "discard nothing", in particular,
> to keep the probability of it being not true positive; and
I get the impression you spend a lot of time in endeavors related to society,
sociology, politics or another related field. Something more closely in tune
with philosophy than science. In science the opposite approach is necessary –
accept nothing until it is proven accurate (an approach which itself can be
traced to the philosophy of Descartes). In the plain, boring, practical world
of physical sciences, that approach is necessary to achieve results.
> in case of doubt trust thyself.
>
> (until the arrival of further evidence, that is:) Isn't it a cunning Word
> this Serpent, I mean, what is an "overwhelming body of evidence" to some
> is to others a "drivel", i.e. "dismissed as a superfluous text". While I
> was thinking I was providing proof after proof, one more rigorous than the
> other, Richard 'saw' it differently (a "pseudo-intellectual drivel":).
I think it was an effect of being from two very different points of view, and
newsgroup experiences. In his defence (and mine) we regularly read posts in
this newsgroup from people who have fundamental misconceptions about what
science and evolutionary biology are all about. Quite a number of these post
things similar to “my religion says X, therefore all science is wrong.” So
some people here react quite negatively if they suspect they’re reading a
“smoke screen” of rhetoric.
But this word ‘evidence’ is of critical importance to science. Good ideas,
solid logic and a well-formed hypothesis are all fine and good; but it’s
physical, measurable evidence that counts the most.
<snip>
> Propaganda
>
> Having said that I guess I owe you some more words on the mysterious
> ("metaphorical") meaning of propaganda I referred to above. In short,
> 'propaganda' did not refer to your belief system or "faith" (but more to
> the conversation we're having with somebody else, or if you like more
> generally to State textbooks and TV 'documentaries' bearing the imprint of
> scholasticism. I neither "dismiss your metaphysical faith", nor do I
> discard "your religion and that of hundreds of millions of other
> Christians", because I choose to believe that it is our fundamental human
> right: we are free to believe whatever we want to believe. And we owe no
> one an explanation for that :)
And again, please excuse my oversensitivity. :-)
> This is our personal right and freedom to do whatever we like with the
> words, concepts and ideas in our mind, the freedom to choose our preferred
> separate reality in the backyard of our mind (or the matrix of words in
> our subconscious; one quixotic task is to become conscious of the 'axioms'
> and basic building blocks hiding there:). By the nature of human variety
> and 'bio-diversity' of preferences those parallel realities differ widely
> from person to person, from region to region, from epoch to epoch and from
> culture to culture (and from one animal to another, or should we rather
> "dismiss" the "lower" ones as unimportant or "pseudo-intellectual":).
>
> Propaganda for me starts when some 'genius' individuals decide that their
> truth is the truest one and then start a war of words (verbal or beyond:)
> with the infidels, trying to impose their version of reality on everyone
> else, under the 'benevolent' pretext of 'educating the ignorant',
> 'enlightening', 'saving the World' (from "fundamentalism", go figure:),
> 'doing the best for mankind' (their "best" though, their 'objective' and
> highly 'impartial' definition of BEST:) and for any other reasonable
> reason ("weighed in their scales of desire":).
I am nodding slightly as I read. I agree that personal opinions and “truth”
are rather subjective in many contexts like philosophy and religion. But
science’s necessity for boring practicality still looms.
<snip>
> Word crushing
>
> It is based on the shocking realization that words are not to be trusted,
> that contrary to popular opinions their 'true' meanings (and images for
> them in our head) are not universal but subjective and generally relative.
> And you too provided a documented proof for that, you know how? When you
> first found my other 'weak' point--a seemingly innocent paragraph, which
> for whatever reason attracted the bulk of your skeptic attention--and then
> virtually tore it apart. You dissected it into its basic components, every
> 'unfortunate' letter and word there underwent ruthless scrutiny until it
> dissolved to its most natural state - of that being just a word.
In science it is necessary to achieve a certain level of precision. Tedious as
it may be, it is necessary to be very precise.
<snip>
> Of course, it is hard to find a universal 'proponent', it may just as well
> be an illusion, i.e. the same person who made the proposal may easily
> change his mind tomorrow. When pressed people often change positions and
> opinions even from one moment to the next, and in fact there is no need to
> "propound an idea" at all costs (i.e. to the bitter end:). And so it
> happened that the 'tiny' word (or 'bait', 'virus') I coined'
> --'proponents'-- unleashed your imagination and the rest is history:
>
> the Word exploded, expanding at an exponential rate (like the universe of
> words in our mind and ever thicker dictionaries:), as if you obeyed the
> universal 'law of large numbers' and concentrated exclusively on the
> Number of proponents. Thus, you "presumed that by 'proponents' I include
> every biologist in the world" (was nice to learn, but wasn't enough as it
> seems:), then added to it "virtually every biology teacher from every
> elementary, junior high and high school in the world; and every biology
> professor from every college and university, worldwide" and all of a
> sudden the 'monstrous' word was everywhere, assumed gigantic proportions.
>
> Which, basically, was your way of crushing it. It wasn't my way, though
> you had the right to make the "valid hypothesis" ("science's best
> guess":), it is the way we infer the meanings of the words implied by
> others (starting usually from ourselves and then generalising by valid
> induction).
Again, a bit of history here. We often encounter people in this newsgroup who
claim that proponents of evolution are some sort of splinter group trying to
force a minority view on the rest of the world. And we correct that by showing
them that evolution is accepted as a fact by a very large number of people who
are in the position to know far more about it than most of us.
> {Digression into induction (Webster)
> Induction: The act or process of reasoning from a part to a whole, from
> particulars to generals, or from the individual to the
> universal; also, the result or inference so reached.
>
> Induction is an inference drawn from all the particulars.
> --Sir W. Hamilton.
>
> Induction is the process by which we conclude that what is true
> of certain individuals of a class, is true of the whole class,
> or that what is true at certain times will be true in similar
> circumstances at all times. --J. S. Mill.
>
> Inferences are a shrewd application of the Aristotelian method of
> induction from the particular 'proponent' to the general "presumption",
> and that is how he 'established' (for all times:) that the "lower animals"
> were less "intelligent" and 'therefore' should ascend to the highest
> ladder--rational Man (or the "social animal", another of his "political
> science" words). He 'just' presumed it and many other things, the way to
> make a 'valid' statement. "Valid" to whom? What is "valid"?
>
> Backed by "evidence", perhaps? And again, what is evidence? To whom? }
He may have considered it a valid statement, but science wouldn’t accept that
today. Back to the old “accept only that which can be proven” concept, he
would have to hypothesize that a lower animal was less intelligent; make
predictions based upon the hypothesis; test the idea; then observe the
results. If the results weren’t exactly what he expected, he’d need to modify
the hypothesis and start again. That’s the basic framework of the Scientific
Method. If his hypothesis had been tested repeatedly by many people over a
long period of time, then it might eventually be labelled a ‘Theory’ – a
hypothesis that was backed up by a preponderance of evidence.
<snip>
It appears to me that this describes our use of probablility and chance as our
observations of the world around us.
> When we believe in the theory of chance it is because we choose
> so, in that paradoxical sense in the beginning of chance is again
> choice. Next we may choose to forget that early choice and remain
> 'forever' in the mental universe of randomness, if anything we
> learned that it might be feasible:). A mutation in this (chosen:)
> universe of chance is at once 'recognised' as a clear, random
> manifestation of the Evolutionary Process.
>
> By the same token, when we refuse to believe in the theory of
> chance it is again our choice. Then we either say that we do not
> know (humility:) or else enter the mental universe of
> pre-determinedness where everything happens for a reason, for a
> cause, for the why. When we observe a 'mutation', i.e. a totally
> unexpected event, we then say that it was God's will {shouldn't be
> excluded for we still couldn't reject His existence with
> confidence, and of course, when he exists we would expect Him to
> also take charge of the "Origin", Genesis and Creation and not
> just stand by and watch the Process}. Or we say that it was
> Nature's will or even that of a Supreme Reasoning Being (other
> than us). We could even say that the 'mutation' was a result of a
> sub-conscious choice by the soul of the 'mutant', again it will be
> no chance coincidence. Nothing is left to chance in this mental
> universe of certain causes.
Again the difference between philosophy and science. Some things do happen
purely by chance, or they happen purely by chance within a range restricted by
physical laws.
> These are just two extreme universes (but in fact prisons for our
> mind:) which we may visit and even choose to dwell in (permanent
> fixation); though we do not have to, we may as well admit that we
> do not know for sure and choose to balance somewhere in-between,
> waiting for arrival of the "overwhelming body of evidence". For so
> far, the "preponderance of evidence" has been inconclusive, "many
> different mental universes are possible. When we accept or reject
> the Axiom of Chance, we are specifying which universe we shall
> work in. Both possibilities are feasible -- i.e., neither
> accepting nor rejecting AC yields a contradiction".
And yet in science we are pulled back into the realm of boring practicalities.
You will see examples of people who refuse to be constrained by such mundane
things. Crops circles, sea monsters and UFOs are just a few that come to
mind. Those commonly involved with investigations into these phenomena do not
constrain themselves with evidence. However, one of the basics realities of
science is the necessity of repeatability, falsifiability, etc, which require
evidence composed of cold, hard, boring facts. Thus the importance to science
of “a preponderance of evidence.” The intellectual flights of fancy (crop
circles, etc.) are considered pseudoscience since there is little to no
evidence, and often not even an identifiable hypothesis.
> We may either view 'mutations' ('random' facts) as a product of
> random chance or as a certain product of a definitive cause (or
> choice of some internal or external entity). In either case,
> however, our belief and point of view is determined by our
> choice. Therefore, in the beginning of chance was choice.
>
> QED (End of proof:).
Truly interesting, in a philosophical way.