Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Acheiving Omniscience

159 views
Skip to first unread message

fre...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 11:29:48 AM12/2/14
to
The following comes from a scientific study for the benefit
of those who won't understand it. *

"The Law of Intellectual Entropy states: "Intelligence is a
measure of the ease with which one solves problems. As
problems increase in complexity, so too must intelligence
increase. If the complexity of a problem exceeds the
ability of intelligence to solve it, then intelligence
ceases to have relevance. When intelligence is used to
create problems that defy resolution it renders itself
superfluous."

As problems increase in complexity there are fewer people
having sufficient intelligence to even comprehend much less
resolve them, making the vast majority of moderately
intelligent people seem less and less capable. It has the
effect of disenfranchising those of less intelligence from
the process of problem resolution and creates an
intellectual elite.

This elite has fewer members as the level of complexity of
the problems encountered increases. The ultimate consequence
of this evolution of lost capacity is that the total
intelligence of the entire species decreases. The clearest
evidence is the operation of this Law is that those having
the mostintelligence persist in creating insoluble problems.
Surely a stupid thing to do."

A common example is when people believe they know enough to
know what is impossible. Based on this confidence, these
people assume that their knowledge is complete and needs no
further input. Since there is nothing more to learn, there's
no need for thought. At this point, intelligence no longer
has any value and becomes indistinguishable from a pile of
gravel.

* http://misplacedfacts.org/entropy.html

Bill

Robert Camp

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 11:49:45 AM12/2/14
to
Once again you retreat behind that same, petulant strawman. One, in
fact, for which you've apologized previously.

Is this because you are not intelligent enough to recognize and
understand the complexity of the discussion here, and thus you're
creating a "problem" that, for you, is insoluble?

Or is it just that you're sulky about being asked to support your vague
reveries, and don't have the discipline to resist throwing a tantrum?

fre...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 11:59:46 AM12/2/14
to
I have not attained the lofty status of gravel yet so
there's still stuff for me to learn. An example is that
your reply makes no sense.

Bill

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 1:14:46 PM12/2/14
to
I interpret your comment/question (which contains a lot of meaningless
and embarrassing hyperbole) as intending something like: Since there
are so many things I cannot understand - how can I be sure I am able to
understand anything at all about the true nature of reality?

In the final analysis none of us (stupid or intelligent) can be
absolutely certain of anything at all. The best we can do is identify
well evidenced facts about ourselves and the world around us and then
gradually build a wider and wider world view based on these fundamental
"facts".

As we go along we find that we have made many mistakes. If a mistake is
important it is often useful to re-examine your fundamental beliefs and
change those beliefs that don't seem to match expected reality.

I don't think anyone gets even close to seeing perfect truth, but with
hard work most of us can get much closer - if our objective is to know
what is true and not just find arguments in favor of our existing
beliefs. (Aside: Many people just want to be happy - entirely possible,
but there's no reason to believe that will improve your chance of
getting closer to any truth.)

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

fre...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 1:59:45 PM12/2/14
to
My point (if there is one) is that posters here imply great
knowledge about things for which there is no direct
evidence. The most common case is trying to "explain"
something with conjectures of what might be as if some
hypothesis is established fact. This will usually include
some reference to some science as if that fact alone makes
their point.

If someone tries to argue that a multiverse or string theory
reinforces their point, it immediately becomes suspicious.
There are "things" considered real that remain problematic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

I believe that there's enough uncertainty to make any firm
conclusions premature but most posters here disagree. They
seem to believe enough is known to know what is and isn't
possible, I disagree.

Bill


Sally Be Good

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 2:39:46 PM12/2/14
to
It's pretty clear that this person is messing with you people. I bet he laughs every time someone takes him seriously.

Robert Camp

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 3:04:45 PM12/2/14
to
I'll give you the Cliff Notes version,

a) I think the observations in your quote from the link is misguided at
best. It seems to me the conclusions offered can just as easily be
reversed, and so I lampooned it (perhaps not particularly well) by
suggesting your lack of intelligence produced an effect similar to that
conjectured in the quote.

b) I don't really think you're unintelligent. I think you're possessed
of overinflated opinions of your ability to divine the truth. And I use
the word "divine" pointedly, as I have yet to discover any reliable,
evidence-based methodology to your approach to knowledge.

Robert Camp

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 3:04:45 PM12/2/14
to
If you really think that's clear, you haven't spent nearly enough time here.

Leopoldo Perdomo

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 3:34:45 PM12/2/14
to
The argument is stupid. The average problems need only average intelligence.
Some more difficult problems, require some specialized intelligence.
But some problems are out of reach of our present intelligence, in a
similar way that 500 years ago, the most learned people was unable to
solve some problems, that are trivial today. So, both the average
intelligence, and the superior intelligence of some learned people, had
increased.
The average adult today have a lot more intelligence than the average
adult of the 19th century. The test of intelligence, derived from
Lewis Terman model, had to be altered by a factor minor than 1 each
five years or so, to maintain in 100 the value of the average result
of IQ. In this way, in many countries, even in the US the average
intelligence had increase some 15 to 20 points per decade. This is a
lot of increase. In this sense, the average person of 1920 would had
obtained such a result that would look a little retarded.
You can consult in the wikipedia "The Flynn Effect" where this matter
is explained in more detail.

This argument you presented does not make any sense, for it contains
an implicit idea that all problems can be solved with enough intelligence.

intelligence simply means to know. Not only to know how to solve problems
but simple to know many useful things. The main problem with knowing is
the lack of certitude. You cannot be sure, if something you know is true
or not, or it applies to the matter you think that applies.
On the other hand, as the number of things you know increases, our brain
becomes inefficient to manage so much information. On the other hand,
to solve some problems, you must reduce the field of inquire to cope
with so many data. In general, for some field of inquire, you can be
using dubious or false theories inherited from the past; this can become
an obstacle to solve the problem are working on.

You should read some history about the steam machines and the theory of
thermodynamics. How slow was the process to understand the whole question.

I was watching a video on the life of Isaac Newton. He was working on
alchemy for a time, and also he was studying Hebrew to translate some
part of the old testament, in which the temple of Salomon was explained.
He had some magical thinking on the idea, that the temple of Salomon
had to have some magical properties; then if we build a palace or a castle
according to the magic layout of Salomon temple, it would be sort of
invulnerable and resist all attacks. I am not sure in which period of
his life Newton was doing these studies. Perhaps, when he was working
on Alchemy he was intoxicated with the fumes of mercury (quick silver)
that were often used in these studies of Alchemy.
Once can easily lost his marbles with a mercury intoxication. The hatters
that worked in past times with mercury, had a fame of being mad. Then
the saying "as mad as a hatter".

The problem of knowledge is basically a problem of dimensions. While
Nature, or the universe is almost infinite, compared to human brains, we
must have necessarily a problem. On the other hand... knowledge can be
compared to a ladder. You cannot rise to some higher rungs of a ladder
unless you rise up by some lower steps. To acquire a knowledge takes a
lot of time, not only to memorize the elements of this knowledge, but
to understand how the different elements of a knowledge were acquired,
and that they are still valid at present. Then, a human brain has some
mass, about 3 kilos, then it is limited. But the time required to
store in your brain some amount of information is also limited. You
can mention a computer as a storage system. But this do not solve
the problem, the computer has not more intelligence than you. It is only
an storage of information. You must understand if any item retrieved
from the computer is valid, or worthy, or it deserves some trust.

I can put you an example. If when you read this article, you had stopped
to think critically, what is this guy saying? Is this a serious article
or a pile of horse manure? Either you can be is a position to criticize
the article, or not. If you have enough intelligence to analyze the
article, you will find it is silly. But if you are lazy, and not like
to challenge the author you can believe "he is a good Christian".
It is just a metaphor.

What problems do you have with science? Do you think science should be
omniscient? Science is not any god whatever. Only god can be omniscient,
but "damn! We are not sure if it exists a god." Even if it would exist,
we have not a line of communication to ask him questions. So, we are
where we are. Here, and the last train has departed already. We must
wait till tomorrow.

Eri








Leopoldo Perdomo

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 3:59:45 PM12/2/14
to
you are quite naive to say the least. Can you not see that this multiverse
is nothing but an educated speculation? Nobody can take seriously anything
of this sort. Well, only the proponents of this silly thing.
We cannot be so sure, that the plane that would transport you from New York
City to Chicago can arrive safely. It can explode or crash from a high
of 20,000 feet. The most sure questions are trivial, but even those are
all guaranteed to be true.

It seems you are missing some certitudes. But only an omniscient god can
know all things for sure. But we are not gods, and science is not a god.

If you want certitudes forget this group and become a monk or a
contemplative thinker. You can become a Buddhist, or a Hari Krisna
monk or something. If you want certitudes, forget about science. Science
cannot provide you with certitudes. Only religion can provide you with
delusory certitudes.

Eri



jillery

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 3:59:45 PM12/2/14
to
I would be very surprised if any of those who have replied to him take
him seriously. Don't confuse courtesy with stupidity.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

fre...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 5:44:45 PM12/2/14
to
I'm possessed?! I hadn't thought of that. Well that explains
a lot.

> And I use the word "divine"
> pointedly, as I have yet to discover any reliable,
> evidence-based methodology to your approach to knowledge.

Neither have I. I wonder about stuff based on what I don't
understand. If I understand something it becomes less
interesting. I have to admit that I use Stumbleupon to find
things that might be interesting so continuity is spotty
but, since I have nothing to prove, it doesn't matter. I
think of this as an advantage.

Bill


Jonathan

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 6:54:46 PM12/2/14
to

"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r9ur7ahd0hu5i39if...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:29:12 -0600, fre...@gmail.com wrote:

> In the final analysis none of us (stupid or intelligent) can be
> absolutely certain of anything at all. The best we can do is identify
> well evidenced facts about ourselves and the world around us and then
> gradually build a wider and wider world view based on these fundamental
> "facts".
>



You're completely wrong, nature isn't understood by
a filing cabinet full of it's facts, it's understood by it's
global emergent properties. By subjective means, not
objective.

Emergent properties can't be understood by looking
at the system components. The whole notion of
cause and effect is an objective-minded delusion.

Emergence
From Wiki


"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not
imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe.
The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the
twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity
entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor
is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes
not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts."

"The plausibility of strong emergence is questioned by some as
contravening our usual understanding of physics. Mark A. Bedau
observes:"

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like
magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power
arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the
micro-level
potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our
scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable
forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the
traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting
something from nothing.[9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence




s




Friar Broccoli

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 8:49:45 PM12/2/14
to
.

>My point (if there is one)

Ah.

> is that posters here imply great
>knowledge about things for which there is no direct
>evidence. The most common case is trying to "explain"
>something with conjectures of what might be as if some
>hypothesis is established fact. This will usually include
>some reference to some science as if that fact alone makes
>their point.
>
>If someone tries to argue that a multiverse or string theory
>reinforces their point, it immediately becomes suspicious.
>There are "things" considered real that remain problematic:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
>

.

>I believe that there's enough uncertainty to make any firm
>conclusions premature but most posters here disagree. They
>seem to believe enough is known to know what is and isn't
>possible, I disagree.

I'm not very good at abstract thinking, so could you provide a specific
concrete example please - for example: Most people here know a frog
cannot give birth to a kangaroo, but you think we don't know enough to
conclude that - or whatever you think best makes your point.

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 9:34:44 PM12/2/14
to
It is true that many strongly held beliefs are indistinguishable from their
own parody and plenty of those are seen here.

In this case though Sally may have hit the target. The site this guff comes
from is subtitled "Stuff you should know to sidetrack any conversation"

The article it is taken from begins "The law of Intellectual Entropy was
first discovered shortly after the invention of the abacus and formalized by
the Bulgarian Bishop Bnorodor in the 10th century C.E. after the development
by (Saint) Cryl of an especially cryptic alphabet. "

Good luck finding the history of the worthy BBB referenced.

Bill may of course have taken this bait and swallowed whole but it the
contrary interpretation, that the fish is rotten, seems very likely to me.


--
David

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A better world requires a daily struggle
against those who would mislead us.

Robert Camp

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 9:59:45 PM12/2/14
to
This isn't at all about what you wonder about, what you understand, what
you find interesting or what you might have to prove.

It's about whether what you "know" can be communicated in any sensible,
intelligible way to others, and that depends upon *how* you come to know
what you think you know.

As of this juncture, it seems to me how you come to know something
mostly involves mistaking truisms for profound insight.

Robert Camp

unread,
Dec 2, 2014, 10:04:44 PM12/2/14
to
Ah, I took Sally's comment to be about Bill's posts in general. If in
fact it was a more narrow point about this thread then I might agree.
I've noted elsewhere that I think the quote from the OP sounded like
poppycock.

Earle Jones27

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 12:49:44 AM12/3/14
to
On 2014-12-02 16:29:12 +0000, fre...@gmail.com said:

> The following comes from a scientific study for the benefit
> of those who won't understand it. *
>
> "The Law of Intellectual Entropy states: "Intelligence is a
> measure of the ease with which one solves problems.

[...]

> Bill

*
Bill: How do you define 'entropy'?

Thanks,

earle
*

fre...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 11:44:43 AM12/3/14
to
People who take themselves seriously have no sense of humor.
The more one struts about with smug confidence in his (her)
superiority, the more ridiculous they seem.

If you've ever watched the old Sherlock Holmes movies with
Basil Rathbone and Nigel Greene, Dr Watson personifies the
kind of huffy (balderdash! Poppycock!) literalism common in
this group. I apologize for noticing.

Bill



fre...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 11:49:42 AM12/3/14
to
This thread ...

jillery

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 3:59:42 PM12/3/14
to
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:44:29 -0600, fre...@gmail.com wrote:

>People who take themselves seriously have no sense of humor.
>The more one struts about with smug confidence in his (her)
>superiority, the more ridiculous they seem.


<PING!> Dang it!

Rolf

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 5:09:43 PM12/3/14
to

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:no9s7a9a7sl6cs01b...@4ax.com...
I, for one, remain (except to clarify this) silent and unstupid.
Most of the time "acheive" p***es me off anyway.

jillery

unread,
Dec 3, 2014, 7:39:41 PM12/3/14
to
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 23:06:09 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Since I say nothing about those who remain silent, I can't tell what
you're trying to clarify.


>Most of the time "acheive" p***es me off anyway.


We all have our hot buttons.

paul.i...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 25, 2015, 9:24:03 PM3/25/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bill, you posted this back in December. People replied pointing out why that site and its "Intellectual Entropy" idea is just plain wrong. And despite that, now you've started another thread about it.

Running out of ideas...?

Inez

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 12:04:02 AM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
If so, he has achieved some sort of record for pathos.

jillery

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 12:14:03 AM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Not to worry. My impression is nobody takes him seriously.

Chris Thompson

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 10:49:00 AM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You may of course be correct. If so, this group is serving its intended
purpose, which is to keep nutters out of the real science groups. Of
course, with the demise of Usenet that purpose is rather moot these
days. Bottom line: there are occasional lurkers who read tripe like
Bill's and wait for the debunking. Perhaps more important, some of like
poking the nutters with pointy sticks.

Chris

RSNorman

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 12:14:00 PM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Rather than even bothering to comment on the content of that post on
"intellectual entropy" or on the poster who showed it to us, it would
be far better to actually explore the source cite:
http://misplacedfacts.org/

That set of pages really is quite entertaining. Some of it has some
basis in reality and much more of it sounds like it might have some
basis in reality but most of it is pure fun. There is no way that you
can take seriously what it says. And there is no way that we should
take seriously this thread (except for my post, of course).

Bill

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 3:04:00 PM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:

> Bill, you posted this back in December. People replied
> pointing out why that site and its "Intellectual Entropy"
> idea is just plain wrong. And despite that, now you've
> started another thread about it.

I will agree that the article has been referred to before
but I fail to see how it's just plain wrong. In fact it
recognizes something that is fundamental to most threads
here: knowing stuff is the best protection from ignorance.

The problem is that the stuff claimed to be known, as often
as not, relies on other claims of knowledge which further
relies on still other claims of knowledge in an infinite
regress.

At some point one would hope to find the original fact. It
turns out that the original fact is often an hypothesis
purporting to explain a still more distant fact. By doing
this, we create an enormous collection of bold assertions
about our knowledge with very few actual facts.
>
> Running out of ideas...?

Of course. This requires me to rethink whatever I thought I
knew and throw most of it out. This newsgroup is an
excellent resource of such useless knowledge about things
that probably don't even exist and should be ignored.

Bill

chris thompson

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 3:24:00 PM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Bill, you posted this back in December. People replied
> > pointing out why that site and its "Intellectual Entropy"
> > idea is just plain wrong. And despite that, now you've
> > started another thread about it.
>
> I will agree that the article has been referred to before
> but I fail to see how it's just plain wrong. In fact it
> recognizes something that is fundamental to most threads
> here: knowing stuff is the best protection from ignorance.
>
> The problem is that the stuff claimed to be known, as often
> as not, relies on other claims of knowledge which further
> relies on still other claims of knowledge in an infinite
> regress.
>
> At some point one would hope to find the original fact. It
> turns out that the original fact is often an hypothesis
> purporting to explain a still more distant fact. By doing
> this, we create an enormous collection of bold assertions
> about our knowledge with very few actual facts.

You wouldn't care to back that up with an actual example- indeed, one pertaining to origins and/or evolution?

No, didn't think so.

Chris

Bill

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 3:39:00 PM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
chris thompson wrote:

...

>>
>> The problem is that the stuff claimed to be known, as
>> often as not, relies on other claims of knowledge which
>> further relies on still other claims of knowledge in an
>> infinite regress.
>>
>> At some point one would hope to find the original fact.
>> It turns out that the original fact is often an
>> hypothesis purporting to explain a still more distant
>> fact. By doing this, we create an enormous collection of
>> bold assertions about our knowledge with very few actual
>> facts.
>
> You wouldn't care to back that up with an actual example-
> indeed, one pertaining to origins and/or evolution?
>
> No, didn't think so.

How about every theory of every kind in every science. Every
theory is a structure of cascading hypothesis which are
derived, eventually, from some observation of something in
nature.

The observation is real and the thing observed is real but
the interpretation of what it means is the province of the
theory that purports to explain it. The very act of
constructing and applying theory divorces it from the thing
being explained.

There is the thing needing explanation and there is the
explanation itself and they aren't the same. This does not
mean that a theory is "wrong" but it does mean that it is a
complex intellectual artifact that is, inherently,
subjective. The fact that I even have to point this out
shows how blind we are to our assumptions.

Bill

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 4:09:00 PM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Anti-realism is an actual position in philosophy of science. Like you, it claims that science does not aim at finding out about what is *really* out there, and it holds that all the theoretical constructs, like atoms, or fields, are simply things we make up which have nothing to do with the real world. Still, even so, anti-realism does not forget, as you seem to, that theories "preserve the phenomena*." That is they accurately describe observations and they make correct predictions of future experimental results. Even for an anti-realist, that counts for something. You, on the other hand seem to want to dismiss not only the ontological reality of theoretical constructs, like atoms or fields, but also the "preservation of the phenomena" and the correct predictions of the theories as well.

*A prototypical example of an anti-realist view of preserving the phenomena, would be the claim that while Keplerian orbital dynamics correctly preserves the phenomena of the apparent motion of the planets in the sky, the timing of eclipses, etc, the claim that the earth *really* orbits the sun is simply an aspect of the constructed model that is beside the point and can't be derived from the observations.

Bill

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 5:44:00 PM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
If I attempt to explain what motivates my posts, it will
lead to endless confusion. There is what I think may be real
and then there's all the ways people can find to disagree. I
don't want to submit to that whole process since I can see
no point to it. I know what appears to be real but I also
know that I'm probably mistaken.

Bill

chris thompson

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 6:23:59 PM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:39:00 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
I note that you did not use any actual examples, let alone anything pertaining to origins.

You also make it sound like all knowledge we have is a result of hypothesis building, with no experimental data collected, nor even trial-and-error learning.

All human endeavors are subjective to some degree. Some are more subjective than others. Good science makes every possible attempt to be objective, as do good criminal justice, good teaching, and a whole host of other activities. That's a big reason scientists use that thingy called "statistics"- you know, the thingy with all the numbers and funny letters. When used properly, statistical analysis allows an objective look at a data set. It's also why good science is subject to rigorous review, and the opportunity for anyone in the field to try and replicate the results.

So yes, while science, as a human endeavor is subjective, it strains to be objective. The subjectivity of science in no way invalidates it, any more than the subjective nature of sculpture or cooking invalidates those endeavors.

Chris

Bill

unread,
Mar 26, 2015, 8:14:01 PM3/26/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
chris thompson wrote:

> On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Bill, you posted this back in December. People replied
>> > pointing out why that site and its "Intellectual Entropy"
>> > idea is just plain wrong. And despite that, now you've
>> > started another thread about it.
>>
>> I will agree that the article has been referred to before
>> but I fail to see how it's just plain wrong. In fact it
>> recognizes something that is fundamental to most threads
>> here: knowing stuff is the best protection from ignorance.
>>
>> The problem is that the stuff claimed to be known, as often
>> as not, relies on other claims of knowledge which further
>> relies on still other claims of knowledge in an infinite
>> regress.
>>
>> At some point one would hope to find the original fact. It
>> turns out that the original fact is often an hypothesis
>> purporting to explain a still more distant fact. By doing
>> this, we create an enormous collection of bold assertions
>> about our knowledge with very few actual facts.
>
> You wouldn't care to back that up with an actual example- indeed, one
> pertaining to origins and/or evolution?
>

Abiogenesis is about origins and I said nothing about it and I have no real
interest biological development beyond the fact that it occurred.

Bill

Walter Bushell

unread,
Mar 29, 2015, 8:43:50 PM3/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In article <ca7b0964-cc55-4fbe...@googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So yes, while science, as a human endeavor is subjective, it strains to be
> objective. The subjectivity of science in no way invalidates it, any more
> than the subjective nature of sculpture or cooking invalidates those
> endeavors.
>
> Chris

Don't anthropomorphize abstract ideologies, they hate that.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

William Morse

unread,
Mar 29, 2015, 9:53:50 PM3/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 03/26/2015 02:59 PM, Bill wrote:
> paul.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Bill, you posted this back in December. People replied
>> pointing out why that site and its "Intellectual Entropy"
>> idea is just plain wrong. And despite that, now you've
>> started another thread about it.
>
> I will agree that the article has been referred to before
> but I fail to see how it's just plain wrong. In fact it
> recognizes something that is fundamental to most threads
> here: knowing stuff is the best protection from ignorance.
>
> The problem is that the stuff claimed to be known, as often
> as not, relies on other claims of knowledge which further
> relies on still other claims of knowledge in an infinite
> regress.
>
> At some point one would hope to find the original fact. It
> turns out that the original fact is often an hypothesis
> purporting to explain a still more distant fact. By doing
> this, we create an enormous collection of bold assertions
> about our knowledge with very few actual facts.

I have to disagree, and rather completely. Science may start out with
assertions based on a limited set of facts (even this is not often the
case), but what we wind up with is a relatively small collection of well
tested assertions about our knowledge with a vast amount of actual
facts. Let's take electromagnetism as an example. IIRC Maxwell and
Thomson were geniuses who made some extrapolations from what was known
at the time, but their theories have not become more distant from the
facts, they have been steadily bolstered by the facts. Manufacturing
plant engineers add capacitors all the time to correct their power
factors, and it works. GFCI outlets routinely protect us from getting
badly shocked in bathrooms and kitchens. We have tons of facts that
support our theories. This is clearly true of evolution, where
accumulating fossil and DNA evidence all support the theory.
0 new messages