Posted on 04/29/2008 10:20:32 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Postmodernism At Work
The following two statements are parts of comments made on the Free Republic forum in response to Pamela Hewitt's "Problems of Evolution."
"Nothing in Science is ever “proven”, just provisionally accepted pending further data." (—allmendream)
All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved! (—Coyoteman)
Normally, I would not bother with such mindless statements, but they just happen to perfectly exemplify the post-modernist nonsense that is being taught in today's colleges and universities. It is why we are living in the age of gullibility. Do not suppose this is just ignorance, however. These things are being taught with a purpose. The idea is, if you convince people nothing is ever certain, proved, or absolute, you can then put over just anything and call it science.
If "nothing in science is ever proven:"
I must assume these two have "living wills" specifying that cardioversion or defibrillation is not to be used on them since the principle of using electricity to convert a fibrillaing heart to a sinus rhythm has never been proved.
I am going to feel very sorry for these two if they ever need an operation, since the efficacy of anesthesia (once a great scientific controversy) has never been proved.
And they must really be missing out on all those television programs and phone calls transmitted by satellites launched into orbit around the earth's equator at a distance of about 22,300 miles which maintain a stationary position over the earth, by maintaining an orbital speed of approximately 6000 miles per hour, because, according to them, the physical principles such satellites are based on have never been proved.
They must only use electricity if it does not come from nuclear power plants, since the scientific principles describing a sustained chain nuclear reaction have never been proved. (Maybe they use no electricity at all, since they are sure the theory of combustion and Ohm's law have never been proved either.)
Nor must they use computers, or any other electronic devices that would not and could not work if the theories of electronics and quantum mechanics they are based on were not proved. They must avoid all Sky Scrapers because the laws of physics which are the basis of their engineering from the materials used to the structural design would fail if those physical principles were mere unproven hypotheses which, according to them, they are.
I do not know what planet these two live on, but on this planet the principle of an electric current being generated simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire discovered by Michael Faraday, who was considered a charlatan by his contemporaries, has been proved. The unbelieved assertions by Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi that wireless communication is possible, has been proved.
What kind of demented mind can insist that nothing in science has been proved? One that assumes things without evidence, based on nothing more than the fact someone does not accept their particular faith. Here is the evidence (a concept totally foreign to such second-hand minds).
"Being a nurse doesn't QUALIFY one, in and of itself, to make an academic argument on Evolution or Genetics. ... Nothing better than an educated layman."
The fact that the "nurse" happens to be a degreed geneticist who has both worked in the field and lectured in it as well, these dimwits did not bother to discover. Evidence is not something they care about, since their cherished faith is being threatened by objective questions their little minds are incapable of answering.
They are dripping with hubris and patent snobbery, exactly like those "scientists" who were publishing papers proving heavier-than-air human flight was impossible while two laymen, who were obviously not educated well enough to learn what they were doing was "scientifically" impossible, were too busy flying to notice. According to these two jokers, the possibility of heavier-than-air human flight has never been proved. They're still waiting for, "further data."
If you believe nothing in science has been proved, it makes it easy to swallow totally made up stories such as the following:
"Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years;" [From Rutgers University]
What's the difference between "unequivocally established" and "proved?" In normal English, even as spoken by scientists, there is no difference; but these story tellers can always say they never said it was "proved" we all came from a common ancestor. It's meant to deceive and gain unquestioned acceptance.
And it's pure fiction. There is no way such a thing could possibly be established. If evolution could happen once, there is nothing in reason or evidence that even suggests it could not happen more than once or even hundreds or thousands of times; but it's happening more than once would not fit their story, so just ignore that fact and present your story as, "unequivocally established," and all the gullible academics will swallow it whole.
In what way were my questions deliberately misleading?
Yes, empirical observations indicate that we are on the spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy circling the galactic core.
“perhaps after that she could explain ...”
She cannot post here anymore. How is she supposed to explain anything.
She told me, if she has the time, she probably answer all the questions put to her here, but will post it only on the Independent Individualist. If she does and you like, I’ll let you know its there, and where.
Hank
It is an empirical observation that we are on the spiral arm of this galaxy not in its center.
It is an empirical observation that the actual center of our galaxy is a quasar.
It is an empirical observation that our sun doesn't have the requisite mass to be the center of our galaxy.
I eagerly await her forthcoming explanations.
“... she addressed this for an appeal. “
I doubt very much if that’s the reason she was banned. I think it is the cowardice of second-rate self-styled “scientists” who would not be allowed to wash bottles in the labs weatherwax managed, because they are afraid of being exposed as the frauds they are by a first rate mind.
If it really were the other thing, the “free” in Free Republic would be a joke.
And what’s wrong with you people calling everyone with a different point of view a “troll.” All she did was state the fact that in Australia the authorities cannot take people’s children away from them without due process—never on the basis of an anonymous phone call. That’s trolling? Good grief!
The real horror is what is going to happen to those children now—they will be raped, physically abused, mentally abused, neglected and worse. Nobody want’s to face that though. Two wrongs still do not make a right.
http://theautonomist.com/home/?/ind_ind/article/still_think_you_are_free1/
Be sure to read Senator Nancy Schaefer’s report at the end. It’s happening in Texas too.
Hank
So were most of the scientists here banned last year at their own request in a devious attempt to maintain the illusion that FR tends towards anti-scientific viewpoints? Well, yes, that is part of the conspiracy. . . Snorfle again!
And what’s wrong with you people calling everyone with a different point of view a “troll.”
I didn't say she was a troll, I said it's not surprising she got the zot from bashing the US of A. There's a predictable outcome.
Since you feel so strongly I suggest you go back to that other thread and expound. In great length. For my amusement. :-D
“I eagerly await her forthcoming explanations.”
Tell you what. I’m going to suggest she not explain anything to you until you have responded to the article—which you never did.
You said:
“Nothing in Science is ever “proven”, just provisionally accepted pending further data.”
The article lists several things in science that have been proved:
1. electrical cardioversion or defibrillation
2. anesthesia
3. geo-stationary satelites
4. controlled nuclear chain reaction
5. quantum principles of solid state electronics
6. light amplification by phased stimulated emission
7. wireless communication
8. heavier than air human flight
At one time these were all bitterly contested scientific questions. They are now all established sceintific facts, the proof of the theories.
Now which of these has not yet been proven in your mind?
I eagerly await you forthcoming explanation.
Hank
“I didn’t say she was a troll”
No, you didn’t use those words. Yours was by snyde implication:
“She could troll scientists to her heart’s content ...” implying that is what she was doing.
I have no feelings at all about what other people think or feel. The only feeling a have is a sad one for those children because people do not think about consequences and feel they have a right to interfere in other people’s lives.
By the way, in my country they don’t allow children to be taken away from parents on the basis of anonymous phone calls either. My country is The United States of America, which went missing sometime between 1955 and 1965. It used to be around here, but you find much of it left.
Hank
True.
==It is an empirical observation that we are on the spiral arm of this galaxy not in its center.
True.
==It is an empirical observation that the actual center of our galaxy is a quasar.
Are you sure? From what I understand, scientists believe that there is a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. Black holes are thought to play a huge role in powering quasars. But not all black holes—even massive black holes—produce quasars. For instance, contrary to your statement above, scientists DO NOT believe the Milky Way contains a quasar, nor is there any scientific consensus as to whether the Milky Way was a quasar in the distant past.
==It is an empirical observation that our sun doesn't have the requisite mass to be the center of our galaxy.
Copernicus claimed that the sun was likely at or near the center of the observable universe. We know from empirical observation that the sun is not “at” the center, but there is nothing preventing the universe from having a center, nor is there anything preventing the Milky Way from being at or near that center. My point in bringing up Copernicus was to point out that he believed A) the universe has a center B) that the sun is at or near its center and C) to point out that Hawkings et al are abusing his name, for Copernicus would most assuredly object to the principle bearing his name. In short, I was not citing Copernicus to suggest that I believe the sun to be the center of the universe. Although, I think it is very likely he was much closer to the truth than modern Big Bang cosmologists.
Finally, I ask again...If Hawkings et al admit their Big Bang cosmology is based on an “admixture” of ideology (the assumption that our universe is spatially homogeneous/has no center) why do you insist that said ideology is warranted by empirical observation? Before you answer, let me remind you that we are talking about the UNIVERSE, not the Milky Way.
I don’t recall backing out of any debate. I stated from the outset that FR is not suited for debate because you can’t exclude kibitzers, and the forum has a history of banning people who take the wrong side in debates.
Besides, GGG’s side of the HIV debate is well represented by the Rev. Wright and his pet politician, Obama.
When I imply things, I’m often snide, but never snyde. However, in this case you inferred something that I did not imply.
Postmodernists think there is no objective reality ‘We all create our own reality’.
Science believes we can make a model that will predict and explain objective reality, but we do not confuse the model for reality itself, and we try not to get dogmatic about the model, after all a contrary explanation or a refinement of the theory could happen at any time. That is what we like to call “Scientific advancement”.
I see. You’re still waiting for more evidence to come in before you’ll accept the possibility of heavier than air human flight is proven.
And you are not the post modernist?
Good grief!
Hank
Should I take your lack of response for agreement?
==I hardly duck an argument about Science but delve into the data and see what it says.
Is this one of those times, Allmendream???
However the black hole of our galaxy is obviously more central than either our planet or the star that our planet circles, as our star does indeed circle the central mass of our galaxy.
Now can you answer my question? Does humanity need to be in a centralized location for God to see us or to love us and think we are important? Or is it enough that we are on the spiral arm of a galaxy that isn't in the center of the Virgo galactic cluster which is also not the central galactic cluster? Does God love us any less if this is in fact the case?
You have already proven yourself head and shoulders above the DC-types on this board.
==However the black hole of our galaxy is obviously more central than either our planet or the star that our planet circles, as our star does indeed circle the central mass of our galaxy.
True. But you are arguing with Copernicus, not me. All I'm suggesting is that the universe may have a center and an edge, and that we may well be very near that center because the universe appears spatially homogeneous from our vantage point.
Also, you failed to answer one of my key questions, so I will ask it again...If Hawkings et al admit their Big Bang cosmology is based on an “admixture” of ideology (the assumption that our universe is spatially homogeneous/has no center) why do you insist that said ideology is warranted by empirical observation? Before you answer, let me remind you that we are talking about the UNIVERSE, not the Milky Way.
==Now can you answer my question? Does humanity need to be in a centralized location for God to see us or to love us and think we are important?
Of course not. But there is the sticky issue of the Bible repeatedly declaring that the earth is unique, that the heavens were created for OUR benefit, not to mention the Bible verses that imply the universe has both a center and an edge. So we may very well occupy a centralized location because God loves us, not because we have to for God to love us, but because it was part of God's loving plan. Science can test to see whether these verses are merely figures of speech, or literally true. And if they are true, why wouldn't God want us to discover that his love for us is built right into the cosmos?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.