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.
I think Hank may be Reginald Firehammer, the author of the post. Reggie is the owner of the site that Ms. Hewitt insists on posting on rather than FR.
“Reginald Firehammer is the creator and producer of the Independent Individualist and The Autonomist”
I tried to register, but for some reason I haven’t received my activation email. I smell fraud.
This Firehammer guy is a trip.
The Hijacking of a Philosophy,
Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.
by Reginald Firehammer
It’s no fraud. The site has recently undergone some major software changes. I will let the owner know your activation email has gone astray and he will fix it.
Post-modernism thinks there is no objective reality and all views are equally valid.
Science states that there is a objective and measurable and predictable reality, and some models are definitely better than others because they explain more facts and allow better predictions.
Just because we don't accept it as dogma, “proof”, with 100% veracity; somehow we are wishy washy post-modernists?
Ludicrous.
You should have your Independent Individualist verification email now. Sorry there was a problem. Let me know if there are any more.
Hank
are you firehammer?
And, are you stills ticking to this quote of yours given in post # 1:
"All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved!" (—Coyoteman)
"All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved!" (—Coyoteman)
Yes, I am "stills ticking" to that concept. The reason is given in the two definitions below. (And I am not just making these up. The second is from a CalTech website. I am sure you will agree that the folks at CalTech know something about science, won't you?)
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.
Don't you think it's a bit on the arrogant side to come on with this part of your statement -- "Your “medical professional” -.... is nothing better than an ILL educated layman." before you have an answer to this part: "...(i.e. a nurse) who is a “degreed geneticist” (what pray tell is her degree? And what is her degree in?)
I'm not sure that doesn't go a long way toward disqualifying you to talk about who does or does not have the right to set forth opinions on proof or non-proof about any subject.
Doesn't strike me as you stuck very close to "science" this time.
I was wondering why she was so vague about her actual qualifications. There is nothing to be ashamed about being a nurse. I like nurses. It is just that being a nurse is not a qualification, in and of itself, to make pronouncements on Evolution.
She revealed herself to be a rather ill educated laymen when she said that most mutations are deleterious and most of the rest are neutral. Over 90% of mutations in humans are neutral to selective pressure. Less than 5% of our DNA is genes or the regulatory sequences of genes, and less than 5% of non genetic DNA shows evolutionary conservation. Her essay is full of errors right from the beginning showing a complete ignorance of Molecular Evolution; and we are supposed to take her “Hewitt Conjecture” seriously when she so obviously hasn’t done her homework?
Is it not appropriate to point out that your “medical professional” who is a “degreed geneticist” is a nurse with a Masters Degree? Why is she ashamed of it? I am quite proud of my M.S.; a lot of work went into it.
Is it also not appropriate to point out that she betrays just how little she actually knows about the subject in each and every paragraph?
Yes.
And Pamela, in my forum, is Cass.
Here:
http://theautonomist.com/home/?/forums/viewthread/124/
Hank
I still haven’t received an email
I think that sort of thing is about as snobbish as one can get -- particularly that "layman" bit, when used, as you did, in a derogatory way. Remember, we are all laymen vis a vis professional fields in which we are not qualified -- including you.
And before you get bent out of shape abourt what my qualifications might be to make that statement --
1/ Military Service -- over 30 years -- Retired LtCol -- US Marine Corp Command and Staff College
2/ Retired Lawyer,JD Degree -- over 30 years full and now part time practice
3/ BA History
4/ BA Political Science So I guess I can qualify as a former professional twice over -- and I have never in my life superior enough to apply that term to anyone.
I hope you aren't serious, because up to now you made a lot of sense.
Neither does denying it.
Neither does denying it.
Can you perceive the irony?
Post-modernism states that there is no objective or “privileged” viewpoint; all viewpoints are “equally valid”.
I state that Qualifications are important, but it is even more important that your statements accurately reflect reality.
Cognitive dissonance anyone?
My qualifications:
4 years military service USAF.
Undergraduate degree in Biology.
Masters Degree in Molecular Biology.
Section head for a Pharmaceutical company.
And my #1 Qualification: The things I say about Biology, Evolution and the nature of Science are usually correct, verifiable, and corroborated by the research efforts of numerous Scientists.
Shame on you. I normally like your posts, but that statement betrays the same kind of proud and willful ignorance so common in cretin creationists and IDiots.
Scientific method itself is the product of philosophy. There would be no modern science were it no the insights of great philosophers like Aristotle, Bacon, and Hume, to just name a few.
To say nothing is proved in science simply means that we can never say with 100% confidence that a given theory is 100% valid. At best, we can say all available evidence supports a theory. However, since we can't know what evidence we might find in the future, we must leave open the possibility that an existing theory might have some flaws and have to be modified. For example, Newton's "laws" were supported by all the available evidence until various experiments in the late 19th century uncovered evidence that was not consistent with them. Hence they had to be modified, despite having held up unchanged for some 400 years.
This has nothing to do with postmodernism. Modern philosophers of science do not claim, as does postmodernism, that there is no objective reality. On the contrary, a scientist must assume that an orderly set of relatively stable physical laws govern the natural world, which exists as objective reality. The only claim is that our understanding of those laws will always be imperfect because of limits on our ability to observe natural phenomena. We can never observe everything since we are not gods.
That is humility, not postmodernism.
Congrats, you’re famous!
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.