Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats use science as a weapon
http://toddkinsey.com/blog/2011/08/17/democrats-use-science-as-a-weapon-2/ ^

Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-533 next last
To: allmendream
The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist.

Considering all the social and economic problems, many of which are rooted in science, that have been foisted on us by the so called educated, you've got a lot of nerve to sit there smugly and imply that we're the dumb ones. You really are one arrogant SOB...

101 posted on 08/19/2011 9:00:30 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Unfortunately, you appear not to understand the fallacy and it's relationship to belief in the 'theory' of evolution.

What you are doing is observing an existing system and trying to understand it. You may believe that evolution created that system, but the origin of the system is irrelevant for your purposes. You are simply studying the system and trying to understand how it works and adapts.

You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits.

The fact that biological systems do this, that or some other yet-to-be-discovered thing is irrelevant to the 'theory' of evolution without the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

There is no advantage to believing that evolution created the system. Don't know if your philosophy can handle that or not.

What I am doing is using a theory that ties together the known facts into a coherent whole, and informs me as to how I should form the hypotheses that guide my research.

That is exactly what any scientist does with a theory, no more and no less.

You can try to assign all kinds of beliefs to me because I chose a field of research in which the theory of evolution is central (instead of, for instance, where the theory of electromagnetism is the central guide). But whatever beliefs and motivations you want to assign to me mean nothing. What I research today can result in improvements to medical practice ten or twenty years from now; better medicine is my motivation.

102 posted on 08/20/2011 5:52:07 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Unfortunately, most scientists don't have the critical-thinking skills that your brother does and can't distinguish between science and philosophy.

I have to think that there is a very close relationship between science and philosophy. My degree is "Doctor of Philosophy," not "Doctor of Science."

103 posted on 08/20/2011 6:06:42 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
As a darwinist, you must affirm naturalism, materialism, and atheism. That seems self-evident. If otherwise, please so advise me how you reconcile any other.

Let's see... you start off by calling me a "darwinist" as if there is some sort of religion involved, then you immediately ascribe several other quasi-religious beliefs to me. And you don't even know me!

In my experience, most people who hold nutty quasi-religious beliefs are way too whacked out to even consider studying science.

Beyond that, I really can't comment on your post. While I appreciate that some amount of effort went into it, there isn't much I can say when the entire text is derived from a false premise.

104 posted on 08/20/2011 6:22:46 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Our name is legion!


105 posted on 08/20/2011 6:23:01 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: csense
Please expound upon these social and economic problems that are rooted in science.

Here I thought science helped to save lives, stimulate the economy, and dramatically improve standards of living.

Please bring your uneducated and proud of it social and economic analysis to this “problem” of scientific knowledge.

106 posted on 08/20/2011 6:28:09 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: caww
"But I don't see any indication he attempted to save Eve in what's recorded.....it's a mystery I am anxious to ask the Lord about when I see Him. Why didn't Adam stop it? Why did he yield?"

My point is that it was recorded, in the actions of Christ as the 2nd Adam. The actions of the 2nd Adam point back and help explain the actions of the 1st Adam. Therefore, the 1st Adam willfully 'became sinful' out of love for his fallen bride, just as the 2nd Adam 'became sin' out of love for His fallen bride.

107 posted on 08/20/2011 6:29:42 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
No need to be embarrassed.

What philosophical criteria did you use in “choosing our models” - which of these ‘equivalent’ models do you think accurately reflects reality?

The Earth goes around the Sun.

The Sun goes around the Earth.

Which one?

Cut and paste again because you are too embarrassed to say?

I would be also.

It is embarrassing!

108 posted on 08/20/2011 6:31:19 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: metmom; belzu2010; Matchett-PI
Nah, the headlines would simply read *Mammal evolution occurred earlier that previously thought* and the rabbit would be reclassified as a *living fossil*.

NAILED IT!

As for your Orwell quote (nice to see the intellectual crowd disagreeing without over-the-top ad hominem), I have a question: Were you the mom harassing Perry in New Hamster on Thursday, or were you the kid?

109 posted on 08/20/2011 6:37:48 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: metmom; belzu2010; Matchett-PI
Nah, the headlines would simply read *Mammal evolution occurred earlier that previously thought* and the rabbit would be reclassified as a *living fossil*.

NAILED IT!

As for your Orwell quote (nice to see the intellectual crowd disagreeing without over-the-top ad hominem), I have a question: Were you the mom harassing Perry in New Hamster on Thursday, or were you the kid?

110 posted on 08/20/2011 6:40:45 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2330544/replies?c=74

“There is no scientific evidence favoring geokineticism over geocentrism. That’s the point of their quotes. You, however, put the word of men over the Word of God, period.”

GourmetDan

So why the resistance towards telling me what “the Word of God” is on this subject? Obviously because I reject geocentrism I “put the word of men over the Word of God”. Logically (if you are capable) that would mean you think geocentrism is “the Word of God”.

So why try to claim you think the two systems are equivalent and refuse to answer a simple question about a scientific model and its intersection with “the Word of God”?

111 posted on 08/20/2011 6:42:22 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"What I am doing is using a theory that ties together the known facts into a coherent whole, and informs me as to how I should form the hypotheses that guide my research."

I didn't think your philosophy could handle it.

"You can try to assign all kinds of beliefs to me because I chose a field of research in which the theory of evolution is central (instead of, for instance, where the theory of electromagnetism is the central guide). But whatever beliefs and motivations you want to assign to me mean nothing."

I guess I'm not seeing what beliefs I assigned to you? I thought you asserted your belief in evolution?

"What I research today can result in improvements to medical practice ten or twenty years from now; better medicine is my motivation."

"You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits."

112 posted on 08/20/2011 7:09:26 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"I have to think that there is a very close relationship between science and philosophy. My degree is "Doctor of Philosophy," not "Doctor of Science."

So are you saying that you do understand that evolution is the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

113 posted on 08/20/2011 7:11:06 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Great stuff from Gaghdad Bob. I am always amazed at the things he is able to understand and wrap words around.


114 posted on 08/20/2011 7:13:12 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

No need to be ashamed.

No need to insist on models that are not applicable.

But why stop now?


115 posted on 08/20/2011 7:14:22 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

So why continue to imply that the two systems are not equivalent under GR when the quotes of learned men have been provided to you?


116 posted on 08/20/2011 7:15:59 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Todd Kinsey

This title is BS. It should read......Fake Science.....


117 posted on 08/20/2011 7:19:30 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Very well said.


118 posted on 08/20/2011 7:35:57 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

They are equivalent.... as coordinate systems.

Gravity on the other hand dictates that the small mass of the Earth is in orbit around the many orders of magnitude larger mass of the Sun.

Why do you continue to deny that you think God’s words have weighed in on the subject and that you DO NOT think the two are actually equivalent at all - that accepting one means you are putting ‘man’s words above the Word of God’ or some such nonsense?


119 posted on 08/20/2011 7:54:07 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
As for your Orwell quote (nice to see the intellectual crowd disagreeing without over-the-top ad hominem), I have a question: Were you the mom harassing Perry in New Hamster on Thursday, or were you the kid?

Could you translate that please?

120 posted on 08/20/2011 8:04:08 AM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Again, admitting equivalence as CS admits physical equivalence.

“... it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... “

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

Again, geokineticists always ignore the mass of the rest of the universe, while geocentrists always include it.

Again, “So why continue to imply that the two systems are not equivalent under GR when the quotes of learned men have been provided to you?”


121 posted on 08/20/2011 8:18:35 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
“Geocentrists always include it”.

So you think Geocentrism is correct and explained by “the mass of the rest of the universe”.

That is ludicrous and incorrect.

The Earth orbits around the Sun.

Science will always be “a weapon” to such a ludicrous view of the universe that has the small mass of the Earth motionless while the gravity from “the mass of the rest of the universe” moving the Sun around it.

No need to let evidence convince you of anything! Why that would be putting “the words of men” above “the Word of God”.

As you see it.

Ah, but geocentrists account for the mass of “the rest of the universe”!

Show me the math! The force of the mass of “the rest of the universe” is both equal to counteracting exactly the gravitational pull of the Sun upon the Earth while also being necessary and sufficient to move the Sun around the Earth - while simultaneously (and magically) not having an effect upon the Earth as far as tides and such.

That must be some serious meaningless apologetics!

The rest of the thinking world knows that gravity holds the Earth in orbit around the Sun - all amusing coordinate systems aside.

122 posted on 08/20/2011 8:30:44 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I didn't think your philosophy could handle it.

My philosophy? Exactly what is that? If your definition of "philosophy" is the one in which "philosophy" refers to the sometimes nonsensical arguments put forth by people like Cant, Socrates, etc. ("If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"), then, no, I don't have any "philosophy."

However, if we take "philosophy" to mean what its component word roots mean, "philo" = loving and "sophia" = knowledge, that is my "philosophy."

I guess I'm not seeing what beliefs I assigned to you? I thought you asserted your belief in evolution?

You are using the word "believe" in the context of a religious belief. In that context, I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept evolution because all of the available evidence supports it, just like I accept the fact that my bathroom and kitchen floors are made of ceramic tiles, because all of the available evidence supports that. For the record, I also have no religious belief in my ceramic floor tiles.

"You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits."

Actually, not. The premise of creation is that it is a perfect creation made by a perfect God. It therefore has no need to adapt because it is perfect. I see no evidence that that is the case. What I see is that biological systems are full of features that make no sense unless one accepts that they arose through random events (which aren't as random as creationists try to portray them; they do conform to physical laws which are quite constraining).

Evolution, as a process, isn't even that complicated or amazing.

To me, what is absolutely mind-boggling is that life is maintained in every single organism through the process of countless gadzillions of chemical reactions, and those reactions occur when and where they are needed without any conscious input at all. The fact that gadzillions of chemical reactions can coordinate so well in such a manner that seems so unlikely, however, does not suggest to me that God is up there in Heaven directing all those reactions... I'd think that even for God, that would get boring.

123 posted on 08/20/2011 9:14:39 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Matchett-PI

Sagan is lonely because he believes in billions and billions of stars which the astronauts did not even see in any of their trips to or on the moon.

Go figure.


124 posted on 08/20/2011 10:50:43 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

The KJV refers to it as “science, falsely so called” in 2 Peter 6:20.


125 posted on 08/20/2011 12:05:42 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

The KJV refers to it as “science, falsely so called” in 2 Peter 6:20.


126 posted on 08/20/2011 12:05:50 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; xzins; metmom
Scientists accuse believers in using God to fill the gaps that science can’t. It seems more logical to me that the gaps are in the science rather than in the continuity of God. God is there for the whole ride, not just to bridge the gaps.

Seems that way to me, too, dear brother in Christ!

So it seems it might be helpful to straighten out this language of "the God of the Gaps." That is, what are the people who use this term actually saying?

It seems pretty clear to me that there are no "gaps" in the world; the only "gaps" that exist are gaps in human knowledge about the world and its processes.

But "science" reassures us that, if only the rest of us are patient enough, they will deliver the goods; i.e., they will fill in all the gaps via the scientific method given enough time — a method which excludes any "metaphysical," i.e. "immaterial", let alone "theological" data in principle.

They keep alive in their hearts (it seems) Baron Laplace's hopeless abstraction and reduction of a living universe down to a mechanistic, "clockwork" one.

The problem is, if this expectation is unwarranted to begin with, then any scientific method built on it would also be "wrong" — not to mention that any scientific findings based on this premise would likely be "wrong," too — or at the very least, incomplete.

To which I would say: There's nothing wrong with science's "method" — as long as its application is restricted to its own proper sphere of competence.

Which has obviously proved impressive, at the "material" level.

Or more "materially" to the present discussion, at the observational level.

Everything in the scientific method "supervenes" not so much on the "physical," as on the "observable."

This means that everything within the purview of the scientific method extends to "objects" that are amenable to sense perception — and only to such objects. (I hear Francis Bacon — the driver of this new Novum Organum — had precisely this result in mind.)

Now the problem with that, as Kant pointed out, is that human observers have no assurance that what is presented to human sense perception and understood by such means is an exhaustive description of the object of intention's actual reality as a "thing in itself." We never directly see the thing in itself, only its phenomenal projection to the human mind via sense perception alone. This is what Kant means, when he speaks of the phenomenon (what can be registered by sense perception, as technologically aided if/as possible) and the noumenon — the fundamental state of being of the object that is perfectly unvisualizable and therefore unanalyzable, thus unknown to the human mind — precisely because its manifest being in its totality is irreducible to direct sense perception.

In short, the scientific method is not the magic key that turns all (epistemological) locks....

I'll stop for now. Though good grief, I could go on....

Thank you ever so much for your excellent essay/post, and your kind words, dear brother MNR!

127 posted on 08/20/2011 12:19:14 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Yes dreamy.

We know that you like to imply that quotes from Einstein, Infeld, Hoyle, Born and Ellis showing the equivalence of geokineticism and geocentrism under GR can be ignored.

We also know that you like to imply that there is a physically significant difference even though you have admitted that geokineticism and geocentrism are equivalent coordinate systems under GR.

Nothing new...


128 posted on 08/20/2011 12:55:46 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"My philosophy? Exactly what is that? If your definition of "philosophy" is the one in which "philosophy" refers to the sometimes nonsensical arguments put forth by people like Cant, Socrates, etc. ("If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"), then, no, I don't have any "philosophy.""

Evolution is not empirical, it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Therefore belief in evolution is philosophical.

"You are using the word "believe" in the context of a religious belief. In that context, I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept evolution because all of the available evidence supports it, just like I accept the fact that my bathroom and kitchen floors are made of ceramic tiles, because all of the available evidence supports that. For the record, I also have no religious belief in my ceramic floor tiles."

Again, "You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits." Evolution is a belief supported by logical fallacy.

"Actually, not. The premise of creation is that it is a perfect creation made by a perfect God. It therefore has no need to adapt because it is perfect. I see no evidence that that is the case."

Apparently you have convinced yourself that a strawman leaves you with no alternative. Interesting justification.

"Evolution, as a process, isn't even that complicated or amazing."

That's correct, it's a fallacy.

"To me, what is absolutely mind-boggling is that life is maintained in every single organism through the process of countless gadzillions of chemical reactions, and those reactions occur when and where they are needed without any conscious input at all. The fact that gadzillions of chemical reactions can coordinate so well in such a manner that seems so unlikely, however, does not suggest to me that God is up there in Heaven directing all those reactions... I'd think that even for God, that would get boring."

Ah, another strawman that leaves you no alternative. Interesting justification.

129 posted on 08/20/2011 1:11:24 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"My philosophy? Exactly what is that? If your definition of "philosophy" is the one in which "philosophy" refers to the sometimes nonsensical arguments put forth by people like Cant, Socrates, etc. ("If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"), then, no, I don't have any "philosophy.""

Evolution is not empirical, it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Therefore belief in evolution is philosophical.

"You are using the word "believe" in the context of a religious belief. In that context, I do not "believe" in evolution. I accept evolution because all of the available evidence supports it, just like I accept the fact that my bathroom and kitchen floors are made of ceramic tiles, because all of the available evidence supports that. For the record, I also have no religious belief in my ceramic floor tiles."

Again, "You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits." Evolution is a belief supported by logical fallacy.

"Actually, not. The premise of creation is that it is a perfect creation made by a perfect God. It therefore has no need to adapt because it is perfect. I see no evidence that that is the case."

Apparently you have convinced yourself that a strawman leaves you with no alternative. Interesting justification.

"Evolution, as a process, isn't even that complicated or amazing."

That's correct, it's a fallacy.

"To me, what is absolutely mind-boggling is that life is maintained in every single organism through the process of countless gadzillions of chemical reactions, and those reactions occur when and where they are needed without any conscious input at all. The fact that gadzillions of chemical reactions can coordinate so well in such a manner that seems so unlikely, however, does not suggest to me that God is up there in Heaven directing all those reactions... I'd think that even for God, that would get boring."

Ah, another strawman that leaves you no alternative. Interesting justification.

130 posted on 08/20/2011 1:11:24 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: metmom

On Thursday Perry was at an event in New Hampshire and some kid about 10 years old got in line to shake his hand and asked him how old the Earth is. Perry answered that he had no idea but it has obviously been around a long time. The kid’s mother was standing behind him and on the video of the conversation you can hear her feeding him questions. She finishes up by telling the kid two or three times to ask Perry why he doesn’t believe in science...at the exact moment that Perry is telling him that the reason Texas presents both evlution and creationism in the schools is because kids like him are smart enough to figure out what’s real.

I wanted to just give you a youtube link, but every video I could find chops the conversation up.

Did that answer your question?


131 posted on 08/21/2011 4:38:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; exDemMom
There is no advantage to believing that evolution created the system. Don't know if your philosophy can handle that or not.

That's just it - evolution is a philosophy, not empirical science. The error that evolutionists make is to confuse the two.

132 posted on 08/21/2011 5:18:33 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: MrB
The KJV refers to it as “science, falsely so called” in 2 Peter Timothy 6:20.

Unless you're using a different KJV than I use *smirk*

133 posted on 08/21/2011 5:26:18 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

Yeah. I wasn’t aware of that incident.

Good for Perry to avoid being baited.


134 posted on 08/21/2011 5:37:14 AM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; MrB

1 Corinthians 8
1Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.

1 Corinthians 13:2
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.


135 posted on 08/21/2011 5:41:47 AM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: csense

ping to post 135


136 posted on 08/21/2011 5:42:44 AM PDT by metmom (Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
That's correct, it's a fallacy.

I love it when complaints about fallacy descend into sophistry..

137 posted on 08/21/2011 5:46:34 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; GourmetDan
I love it when complaints about fallacy descend into sophistry.

So just how long has "sophistry" been your polemical magic wand? I see it at least as far back as November 20, 2003.
138 posted on 08/21/2011 6:08:46 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: csense; allmendream
The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist.

And to have a poor command of English grammar.
139 posted on 08/21/2011 6:10:28 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: csense; allmendream
The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist.

As a corollary, the more highly educated and "intelligent" a person is, the more likely he is to be taken in by folks like Uri Geller passing off legerdemain as psi power. According to James Randi, it has something to do with sophisticated intellectual structures that restrict their perception in ways so predictable that magicians can use their perceptual lacunae to run an elephant past their noses and they won't even see it.
140 posted on 08/21/2011 6:18:03 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
So just how long has "sophistry" been your polemical magic wand? I see it at least as far back as November 20, 2003.

There's nothing "magical" about it. Of what consequece does your being able to find an old instance where I have used the word have?

As far as it being "polemical", it may be, but no less so than the assertions it was in response to.

Is your complaint that it's not arguably an exercise in sophistry, that somebody said so, or that I said so?

141 posted on 08/21/2011 6:28:39 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Evolution is not empirical, it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Therefore belief in evolution is philosophical.

Again, "You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits." Evolution is a belief supported by logical fallacy.

Apparently you have convinced yourself that a strawman leaves you with no alternative. Interesting justification.

That's correct, it's a fallacy.

Ah, another strawman that leaves you no alternative. Interesting justification.

All you have really managed to convince me of here is that you have no idea how the scientific process works. Despite that, you're completely willing to ascribe all kinds of weird beliefs and behaviors to scientists. Throughout my entire career, I have never met anyone who believes or behaves the way you seem to think scientists do.

A scientific theory is an explanation that ties together the known facts, which can be used to predict other facts. Those predictions are called "hypotheses." I realize that a large part of the effort of creationists to discredit evolution is simply to disregard the huge body of empirical evidence that led to the development of the theory and support it. However, that evidence won't go away, and neither will the theory. Despite your desires in the matter, trying to substitute a fake "theory" that excludes the principles of evolution won't work: biological science would stagnate without the theory that allows us to make predictive, testable hypotheses.

I know it won't happen, but I would highly suggest learning about the scientific method, preferably from those whose business it is to teach scientists, before you continue to try to impose bizarre beliefs and motivations on scientists.

BTW, since you prefer to portray scientists as bogeymen instead of making even a slight effort to find out anything about science or scientists, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts.

142 posted on 08/21/2011 7:36:47 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
That's just it - evolution is a philosophy, not empirical science. The error that evolutionists make is to confuse the two.

Evolution is a theory, not a philosophy.

As such, it provides a framework for the vast body of biological knowledge, and it provides the means by which we can continue to formulate the hypotheses that drive scientific advance.

Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.

According to Stephen Hawking's criteria, evolution is an excellent theory that has stood up to rigorous testing for well over a century.

143 posted on 08/21/2011 7:53:39 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
"That's just it - evolution is a philosophy, not empirical science. The error that evolutionists make is to confuse the two."

Well as "Expelled" showed us, there are financial disincentives as well.

144 posted on 08/21/2011 8:30:48 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"All you have really managed to convince me of here is that you have no idea how the scientific process works."

All you have really managed to convince me of here is that you have no idea what the difference between science and philosophy really is.

"Despite that, you're completely willing to ascribe all kinds of weird beliefs and behaviors to scientists.

Name one.

" Throughout my entire career, I have never met anyone who believes or behaves the way you seem to think scientists do.

Name one.

"A scientific theory is an explanation that ties together the known facts, which can be used to predict other facts. Those predictions are called "hypotheses." I realize that a large part of the effort of creationists to discredit evolution is simply to disregard the huge body of empirical evidence that led to the development of the theory and support it."

Please show where I have ever tried to disregard any empirical evidence.

"However, that evidence won't go away, and neither will the theory. Despite your desires in the matter, trying to substitute a fake "theory" that excludes the principles of evolution won't work: biological science would stagnate without the theory that allows us to make predictive, testable hypotheses."

Please show how substituting 'a belief in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt' would make any difference. Without creating strawmen that supposedly leave you no choice, that is.

All you are doing is observing the effects of an existing complex system and then claiming that those effects actually created the system in the first place. That is a logical fallacy no matter how you look at it.

"I know it won't happen, but I would highly suggest learning about the scientific method, preferably from those whose business it is to teach scientists, before you continue to try to impose bizarre beliefs and motivations on scientists."

I know it won't happen, but I would highly suggest learning the difference between evidence and fallacy before you continue mischaracterizing those who disagree with you.

"BTW, since you prefer to portray scientists as bogeymen instead of making even a slight effort to find out anything about science or scientists, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts."

Ah, mischaracterize your opponent, declare victory and abandon the field. Like we haven't seen that tactic used before...

145 posted on 08/21/2011 8:44:45 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Evolution is a theory, not a philosophy.

No, evolution is a philosophy - it is a worldview that colours the interpretation of empirical data.

146 posted on 08/21/2011 10:06:27 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
No, evolution is a philosophy - it is a worldview that colours the interpretation of empirical data.

Clearly, you also have no understanding of scientific method. Reading the article at the link I provided earlier would help with that.

Since I really come to FreeRepublic to discuss politics, not to try to educate people who don't want to be educated, I'm really not interested in continuing this kind of discussion.

The only reason I commented in the first place was to try to shake GourmetDan's absolute certainty about the nature/motivations of scientists by inserting the viewpoint of an actual scientist. I'm sure that you're able to understand when I say that I don't like being mischaracterized by people who have no understanding of what I do or how I think.

147 posted on 08/21/2011 10:41:50 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Clearly, you also have no understanding of scientific method. Reading the article at the link I provided earlier would help with that.

I'm a scientist myself, and have been applying the scientific method for half of my life. And evolution does not - despite the rah rah article you posted, and regardless of what Stephen Hawking might think - qualify.

148 posted on 08/21/2011 11:39:14 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; exDemMom; GourmetDan
They keep alive in their hearts (it seems) Baron Laplace's hopeless abstraction and reduction of a living universe down to a mechanistic, "clockwork" one.

As did B.F. Skinner in his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity in which he basically denies free will, saying instead that we are automatons simply reacting biologically to the instructions of our genes.

This means that everything within the purview of the scientific method extends to "objects" that are amenable to sense perception — and only to such objects. (I hear Francis Bacon — the driver of this new Novum Organum — had precisely this result in mind.)

Being unencumbered by intellectual instruction, I came upon this idea independently (I think) quite awhile back. However, my thinking at the time took another road. I concluded that since we can only know things through ourselves, then our universe and our perceptions are unique to each individual. Therefore, to me, the entire universe is my universe. The universe does not exist without me, to me. You and the others are merely players in my universe. Of course the same is true of you and everyone else, that we are all players in the others' universes.

Yet, just as there is much more to Scripture than words, this concept can deal with a lot of subjects. As Master of my universe I can control my perceptions and reactions, if I keep that in mind. I can invite God into my universe and grant control to Him. I can exclude God and be a tyrant or a wimp, in my universe. I can treat others as I wish and deal with the consequences. After all, I am only affecting My universe. If you and others don't like what I do you can shun me or do other things to me but it really only affects my universe, to me. I can also dismiss harmful opinions and information from my universe and not be harmed by them. (I am not saying we can exclude all harmful opinions and information and not be harmed by them. I mean selected opinions and information.) Your universe is affected by what you do to me.

Of course, the more beneficial choice for us all is for me to choose to be loving, kind, and truthful, like all good Boy Scouts. It greatly improves my universe and it makes perceptions and reactions much more predictable and harmonious. It also makes me a pleasant participant in your universe.

This concept also cements the idea that all of us are innately self-centered. Being limited to contact with the external through our senses, we can't escape that. It just is.

R. Buckminster Fuller, the ultimate scientific thinker, said free enterprise has the unique ability to transform the selfish desires of each individual into a good for the whole of society. That is a positive culmination of this concept.

Still, we must keep in mind that this is how we interact with the material world or, as you correctly describe it, the observable world. The key to all this is the internal world of abstractions. It is from these that the perceptions are evaluated to produce the reactions. I don't see how science and the scientific method can deal with that other than by going the B.F. Skinner route. I suppose psychology is considered a science, although an imperfect one, but how do you use the scientific method in psychology? Perhaps it is considered a soft science versus the hard sciences like chemistry and physics.

exDem Mom, in your discussion with GourmetDan, you cite and link to Stephen Hawking and his description of scientific theory. He says, paraphrasing, that you take a few provable facts and from them induce a theory about a larger body of facts. He also says that as long as experiments continue to produce the same results then the theory is intact, even though you can not be certain that the next repetition will give you the same results. He concludes that if the next experiment gives a contradictory result, that one result disproves the theory. He says that is the nature of inductive reasoning.

That may be helpful to you as a teacher of scientific methods and theories but I don't see how that supports evolution. Please tell me the few provable facts that justify the leap in logic which concludes in evolution. In light of the millions of years in which evolution supposedly reigned, tell me how you repeat the experiment endless times in support of that theory. When we know today that cross species breeding is rare in the wild how can one logically conclude the everything - plants, mammals, insects, birds, retiles, etc., came from a single source Common Ancestry and progressed through Natural Selection to the vast number of species we have today.

The giraffe is often used as an example of Survival of the Fittest, a key to Darwin's theory. Supposedly, the giraffe survived because a mutation in giraffe linage caused a strain of animals with long legs and necks and those long legs and necks allowed it to eat the leaves from the tall trees on the savanna and survive. Yet, I have seen pictures and tapes of those giraffes stretching out those long legs in order to reach the ground and eat grass. It seems they are a hindrance there. Also, where is the evidence of the their ancestors, the short neck/legged giraffe from which they mutated?

I am of the opinion that evolution is promulgated as the defining description of the universe, earth, and its inhabitants in order to exclude God and spirituality from the discussion. Simply offering Intelligent Design, even though suggested by Einstein and others, is strictly forbidden. If it is "Science" then it is true and superior to all other concepts. By the way, how are those experiments to determine whether electrons are waves or particles coming along?

I'll stop for now. Though good grief, I could go on....

I wish you would. I love these threads. They are very helpful to me.

149 posted on 08/21/2011 1:02:44 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (I retain the right to be inconsistent, contradictory and even flat-out wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
The theory of evolution is as fundamental to biological science as the theory of electromagnetism is to physical science.

One can judge a theory's validity by the accuracy of predictions it makes. Can you identify a prediction evolutionary theory has made about biology that has been proven true by research? For guidance, consider the many predictions the theory of relativity made that have been proven dead on by spacecraft.

Also, can you identify a single drug, treatment or surgical procedure that has required evolutionary theory to be developed? If not, how could a theory be as fundamental to biological science as electromagnetism is to physical science and not affect the development of new medical frontiers?

150 posted on 08/21/2011 1:24:47 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-533 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson