Democrats use science as a weapon

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

[GourmetDan]

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?”

[allmendream]

“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.

[exDemMom]

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.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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.

[MrB]

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

[MrB]

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

[betty boop]

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!

[GourmetDan]

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...

[GourmetDan]

"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.

[GourmetDan]

"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.

[Mr. Silverback]

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?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

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.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

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*

[metmom]

Yeah. I wasn’t aware of that incident.

Good for Perry to avoid being baited.

[metmom]

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.

[metmom]

ping to post 135

[tacticalogic]

That's correct, it's a fallacy.

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

[aruanan]

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.

[aruanan]

The less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist.

And to have a poor command of English grammar.

[aruanan]

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.