Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
How do you know?
Faith in scientific observation.
One of the things that was interesting about Piaget's observations of learning in children, was the almost universal attainment of basic kinetic physics by children right around the age of 9 months, as I remember. What he observed was that at that age, children will begin to track objects that disappear from view. If a ball travels behind a couch, the child will begin to anticipate the ball coming back into view at the appropriate place and time with it's eyes. An act of faith in Newton's laws, I contend.
Mine might not be the most common usage, but I don't think my terminology is messed up spectacularly. At the base of scientific perception is, I aver, faith--no proof exists that compels me to believe what an oscilloscope screen tells me is in any way related to a physical signal, only usage and custom and a continuous stream of accurate results (when the dang thing is tuned right) shore up my belief. This is, at best, strong inductive evidence, not proof.
Striking at the heart of the argument, at the base of logical proof is, I aver, faith in the axioms and predicates, which are, by definition, not proved--ie. taken on faith.
Let's leave the rude presumptuousness to exmarine, he's better at it. Nothing is "deeper" or more interesting than science to me.
Good of the Designer to find a way to pack all that good "pre-learned" stuff into our DNA.
Didn't I once get into a discussion about Chompsky on this issue -- whether such skills are inborn or have to be learned? Mighty tight coding, in any case.
You're about the only one left who will talk to him.
Perhaps you could consider respect for Newton's laws a tropism. Like algae swimming toward light. Quite a handy thing to have if you have to live outdoors, and make a living in rough terrain all day.
Well, in this group we all know that "proof" is not an operative word. When asked for "proof" the reply is often (I paraphrase here) "Proof is for math, science does not use proof". In light of that condsideration, to ask how something disproves evolution is not a consistent application of the premises in the discussion. It is evident to me that ground-up and tree-down are mutually exclusive methods to achieve a single end in this particular instance. If it were not so, I believe scientists would have offered a plausible hybrid theory by now. So with all of the "quantification" inherent in fitness functions etc., one or the other of these methods of evolution should be predicable. This is not apparent. What is apparent is that just-so stories abound in Darwinian evolution.
As to both being true at the same time, they both are in a way. We know animals that glide and, of course, birds fly off the ground.
I'm quite sure that a lot of our behavior follows some pretty simple rules. I'll be impressed with A.I. when it can emulate the learning of these rules with a handful of components.
They also swim. Is there a swimming theory for the evolution of birds?
I'm not just being picky. I think the terminology points are of great importance in helping to clarify our thinking. In the case of inductive reasoning, conclusions are based on what is properly labeled "confidence" (not "faith"), which arises from the evidence of previously observed instances involving the same phenomenon. "Faith" is a word used to describe propositions which are accepted notwithstanding zero evidence, which is why I think it's a mistake to use the word "faith" in such a context.
Axioms are also different. We can demonstrate that without a particular axiom (e.g. the validity of sensory evidence), no reasoning can be conducted. This is the kind of logical demonstration which a matter of "pure faith" (e.g. the existence of heaven) is lacking. By being sloppy, and using the word "faith" in contexts where it is inappropriate, we get confused declarations like: "It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creationism."
Well, that might be due to the fact that not many trees grow under water. But penquins do "fly" out of the water onto the land. As to being odd for two things to use the same object differently, that was not the problem. The problem is the just-so nature of the tale of Darwinian evolution.
Concerning your swimming chicken, have you seen the latest evidence for the swimming theory of evolution?
You are being picky. You subvert the common meaning of words to your own ends.
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
The second definition sets out the common meaning of faith in the context we use it. Faith is not proven. Axioms fall into this category. Faith also in this particular definition does not rely on material evidence. Notice the word material.
irrelevant adj : having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue [syn: unrelated]
Do you have to work at being irrelevant or is it something that just comes naturally?
So this baby seal walks into a club... 6169 posted on 01/29/2003 9:09 PM CST by Condorman (Rim-shot... Crickets... Flee angry mob...) |
What a spectacular demonstration of deliberate misunderstanding. I was just looking for an example to show to a friend. Thanks, Dollface!
But to clear up any lingering confusion for the lurkers, no scientific theory will ever be "proven," but a scientific theory is always subject to disproof. And for exactly the same reason.
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.