Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.
Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.
" And that would be your philosophy."
No, it is a fact, not a philosophy.
Every intelligent action follows an OODA loop. Observation, orientation, decision, action are the steps in the loop in the order in which they occur. The loop topology exists, because the action is subsequently followed by observation. Consciousness and intelligent thought consists of an arbitrary size finite series of these loops. Note one can always exit to return to observation. The entry point though, is always at observation. At all times the rules of logic apply. IOWs this is a rational process. The irrational is arbitrary and isn't worth pondering.
The scientific method is a series of OODA loops. The first stage in the scientific method is to observe. The second is to orient on the observation. That means to ponder it. One may conclude various things about the observation after a hypothetical list of ?s. The sum of the answers to the questions and the solution(s) are the hypothesis. The action is testing the hypothesis. Of course I've compacted a very large number of OODA loops in there. The reason I did that, is to illustrate that the topology of a rational process is and scales as a loop.
In order for the method to be scientific. It must be universally applicable to any intelligent being. For that to happen. The observables must actually be observable AND not be a function of, and depend on the observer. Also, the hypothesis must be testable and be at all times(tests) consistent with the observations. That includes testing for predictions.
"Where did it come from?"
Rational thought.
"How do we know it's a good method for getting to the truth?
It's logically complete in that it applies to any and all phenomena.
" Before there was a "scientific method" didn't people attempt to get to the truth?"
Yes.
"Weren't they applying rational thought to the best of their abilities?"
It depends.
" What was wrong about their approach?"
If their was a failure, it was do to virtual failure to use the scientific method, or bad logic-which is the same.
"Scientific methods have evolved over time -- why? What were the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the different methods? "
There's only one. See above.
" What is "true knowledge"."
Knowledge is a belief. A belief is a component of a belief system. If the belief system is rational, then the beliefs collected by that belief system will be true, or false as tagged by that system. In general a scientific belief must be tagged and weighted using the scientific method.
" What is the "real world"?"
The sum of all things observable.
"How do you know that?"
What is, is and can be seen and understood. Else, if it can't be seen after looking for it, it's impossible to logically attach any value to it. For all practical purposes, outside of fiction, it doesn't exist.
" You are purporting to speak for "science"."
Yes.
"if you are going to be an effective defender of science; you first have to really understand it.
Anyone can always pose a question and I will answer it. If it is not in line with reality, then anyone is free to point that out.
" Gaining that understanding means delving into the philosophy of science."
Gaining knowledge and understanding of science can only be found within science.
Physics has the action principle. All interacitons follow the lowest energy path available. No observable in nature will ever follow a route of higher energy when a lower one is available. From the last post, if it don't show up when you look, it don't exist.
Contemporary wisdom: The KISS principle applies to all things.
Most of those are probably simple minded text books.
" Web Results 1 - 10 of about 3,580,000,000 for what is science. (0.12 seconds) "
If I look at the first page of 50, with the ? in the title, they're all essays on "philosophy", or just ramble. Wikeped has, "Most scientists feel". Scientists don't feel, they think.
Ramen
Also Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin.
“6. From this account of reproduction it appears, that all animals have a similar origin, viz. from a single living filament; and that the difference of their forms and qualities has arisen only from the different irritabilities and sensibilities, or voluntarities, or associabilities, of this original living filament; and perhaps in some degree from the different forms of the particles of the fluids, by which it has been first stimulated into activity. And that from hence, as Linnæus has conjectured in respect to the vegetable world, it is not impossible, but the great variety of species of animals, which now tenant the earth, may have had their origin from the mixture of a few natural orders. And that those animal and vegetable mules, which could continue their species, have done so, and constitute the numerous families of animals and vegetables which now exist; and that those mules, which were produced with imperfect organs of generation, perished without reproduction, according to the observation of Aristotle; and are the animals, which we now call mules." ...-- Zoonomia; or, the laws of organic life
“Fourthly, when we revolve in our minds the great similarity of structure which obtains in all the warm blooded animals, as well quadrupeds, birds, and amphibious animals, as in mankind; from the mouse and bat to the elephant and whale; one is led to conclude, that they have alike been produced from a similar living filament. In some this filament in its advance to maturity has acquired hands and fingers, with a fine sense of touch, as in mankind. In others it has acquired claws or talons, as in tygers and eagles. In others, toes with an intervening web, or membrane, as in seals and geese. In others it has acquired cloven hoofs, as in cows and swine; and whole hoofs in others, as in the horse. While in the bird kind this original living filament has put forth wings instead of arms and legs, and feathers instead of hair. In some it has protruded horns on the forehead instead of teeth in the fore part of the upper jaw; in others tushes instead of horns; in others beaks instead of either. And all this exactly as is daily seen in the transmutations of the tadpole, which acquires legs and lungs, when he wants them; and loses his tail, when it is no longer of service to him. ...
I seem to have missed the conspiracy posts. I haven't had time recently to read everything.
I don't see anything interesting enough to merit a response.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going anywhere, at least not until I understand what screwed up the evo thinking. Some of us can't just sit on these threads interminably. Try not to fall off your hobby horse.
"piltdown man, dolphins, etc."
Very well put. The cool thing about science is that it goes back and checks its facts.
The only way to construe js1138's post as being indicative of a conspiracy to ban g3k is to interpret it in a manner analogous to claiming that a police investigation into a serial crime is a "conspiracy" to catch the perpetrators. The MODS started a thread and kept an eye on it TO SEE WHO THE "TROUBLE MAKERS" WERE. They found out. The "trouble makers" got banned. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest the MODS "conspired" against anyone, and even less to suggest that the Evos had any part in a "conspiracy to ban g3k." Such allegations are utter hysterical paranoid ideation.
And, to be precise about it, the MODS setting up that thread isn't what got g3k banned; it was g3k's hysterical reaction to the banning of HIS pals, and wild, ill-advised conspiratorial allegatives and insults he made against JR SUBSEQUENT TO HIS PALS getting banned, that got HIM banned.
In conclusion, your interlocutor is wrong on all counts, and has been since this silly argument started. I have arrived at the conclusion that he is unhinged, and is making wild, irrational, and incoherent allegations....... very much like what got g3k banned.
If he wants to allege that the MODS and JR "conspired" to ban g3k, I can't stop him. But I can predict the consequences of his doing so.....
Arrrrrgggghhhhhhh!
;-)
Like I said, no one cares about the issue of who you (didn't) name...
I only said he was conspired against.
THAT's the insane part. How (do you imagine) did this conspiracy work anyway? G3k was manifestly banned for his own -- incredibly -- bitter and unhinged behavior: berating JR as anti-Christian, minutely dictating to JR how to run his website, demanding multiple bannings, etc, etc. How did the conspiracy induce this behavior? Did the conspirators track down his physical location, sneak into his house and drug him?
I based that statement on this post by js1138. Are you guys calling him a liar?
AH HA!
In this post js1138 expresses that, although he was an object of ridicule, he sort of misses g3k. Obviously that's no evidence of a conspiracy by FRevolutionists to get him banned.
However there was in the message you cite (reproduced in full below) a surmise by js1138 that the MODERATORS (not FRevolutionists) decided, during a period of much dissention and many abuse complaints, to closely monitor a crevo thread or threads in order to determine who the troublemakers were.
SO NOW IT'S CLEAR. It's the MODERATORS, not FRevolutionists, who are behind your conspiracy. Indeed you have been discrete in maintaining the passive voice, only affirming that g3k "was conspired against and banned," and not saying by who. But now that you've revealed, in citing js1138's post, who you think the conspirators are, why not be upfront about it?
If you think the moderation of this website and the enforcement of the posted rules amounts to a nefarious "conspiracy," you need to take that up with Jim and his moderators. I won't make the move, but suggest you ping them to future posts in this series.
To: darbymcgillDoes it make you guys even more important in each other's eyes to constantly ridicule someone not here to defend themselves?Ridicule was more fun when the objects of ridicule were still here, but the threads were constanly being pulled.
The mods started a thread to see who was causing the flame wars, and it turned out to be the creationists. About a dozen went down in flames after cursing Jim Robinson.
If you don't want to be ridiculed, the best policy is not to say stupid stuff in the first place, and if you do happen to say something that is incorrect, admit it.
How much intelligence does it take, for example, to notice that a suntan is not equivalent to evolution? How much pride do you have to swallow to admit it isn't a good line of argument?
Would you feel better if I said there was a plan developed and a controlled experiment performed by a group of individuals to determine the origin of unknown but suspected inputs contributing to a specific action previously only observed via ad hoc notification...
I feel fine regardless. Besides I consider the "conspiracy" issue resolved, at least as regards myself and other FRevolutionists. It appears to be between you and the admin.
That isn't the same question that you first asked Dimensio. As I am an ape myself, it would be astonishing if my ancestors didn't include apes. I am also a primate, a mammal, and a vertebrate. My ancestors include those things too. Tell me, are you a mammal?
"When in a hole, stop digging", doesn't appear to occur to every Freeper. I used to think that conservatives were the kind of people who don't have paranoid delusions about "them", but I guess that I'm mistaken.
Almost ...
1,000
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.