tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1751161746573793980..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Peak Fallacy: The Evolutionists False Alarms and Missed AlarmsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18585463045912648692011-08-08T07:39:17.512-07:002011-08-08T07:39:17.512-07:00Marcel: I have said twice now that "we"...Marcel: I have said twice now that "we" (scientists) create theories by making them up. That is the opposite of "generalizing observations"... and yet, that's what you understood from what I said. How hard can it be?<br /><br />Do you always ignore caveats despite having them pointed out to you time and time again?<br /><br />Again, we start out with conjecture, but it's only part of the process. We then test theories via observations and discard those with errors. Nor have you yet to provide an alternative that isn't "crap". <br /><br />Marcel: There is even contradictory observational evidence for some. And yet, you ascribe to me a position I am 100% against.<br /><br />This is precisely what I'm referring to here. Before you could even begin to interpret observations as contradictory, you had to first put them in an explanatory framework. And all frameworks start out as conjecture.<br /><br />So, the position I ascribe to you is a naive empiricist, in that all observations are theory laden. In other words, you seem to suggest there are instances when we do NOT start out by "making things up", testing those theories with observations, then discarding them with errors. I'm suggesting this is a myth. Apparently, you're using a position you're against 100% without realizing it.<br /><br />For example, it could be that the earth is actually surround by a giant planetarium that merely presents a highly elaborate simulation a heliocentric solar system. This could include reflecting photons, radio waves and even returning space craft with just the right about of missing fuel, fake telemetry and even astronauts with implanted memories of collecting fake moon rocks. <br /><br />Can we prove this is NOT the case using observations? No we cannot. Nor can we reject it merely because it sounds absurd. Rather, there are objective ways to determine it's a bad explanation, and discard it. Specifically, it's a convoluted elaboration of heliocentric theory in that it doesn't actually explain the night sky. Rather it merely assigns it to some other unexplained cause. <br /><br />Furthermore, one could make a similar argument for any observation. This is because we do not actually observe causes, we only observe their effects. This includes the photons that bounce off objects and strike our retinas - which we do not observe directly either as they are converted into electrical impulses and interpreted by our brains. <br /><br />And, again, this includes all observations, not just those you happen to find absurd. <br /><br /> Of course, if you have a way around the problem of induction or a way to interpret observations without first putting them in an explanatory framework based on conjecture then, by all means, please enlighten us. <br /><br />Marcel: Try *learning* something, it might help <br /><br />What I've learned is that other forms of epistemology exist other than foundationlism. And they explain our recent explosion in the creation of knowledge. Rather, it seems that you're the one who insists on remaining willfully ignorant. <br /><br />Marcel: As for not knowing Truth... again, tell that to all the morons who repeat "evolution is fact". You are very likely one of them.<br /><br />See above. You continue to be willfully ignorant regarding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism" rel="nofollow">Fallibilism</a>.<br /><br />To repeat my example, we have yet to unify general relative and quantum mechanics. As such, we know they contain errors. However, we do not know which theory and to what degree. Yet we provisionally accept them as true until another theory is presented that, after surviving a critical discussion, is accepted.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55235116590710554612011-08-06T23:30:05.964-07:002011-08-06T23:30:05.964-07:00It would seem that you're yet another individu...<i>It would seem that you're yet another individual here that assumes we create theories by generalizing observations...</i><br /><br />Are you able to tie your own shoes? Honest question. I have said twice now that "we" (scientists) create theories by making them up. That is the opposite of "generalizing observations"... and yet, that's what you understood from what I said. How hard can it be? Scientists MAKE STUFF UP. There is no observational evidence for black holes, dark matter / energy, 15 billion years, stars dying, stars exploding and a thousand other theories. There is even contradictory observational evidence for some. And yet, you ascribe to me a position I am 100% against.<br /><br />Honestly... stop being so much in love with your cleverness. You are nowhere near as smart as you believe. Try *learning* something, it might help (though, to be honest, I cannot guarantee it will make you any happier).<br /><br />As for not knowing Truth... again, tell that to all the morons who repeat "evolution is fact". You are very likely one of them.Marcelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951354231483245521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54264162024530533952011-08-06T09:06:18.930-07:002011-08-06T09:06:18.930-07:00It would appear that further discussion is fruitle...It would appear that further discussion is fruitless as you're selectively ignoring part of my commnets. For example...<br /><br />Marcel: Do you know what "conjecture" means, and how it is absolutely equivalent to "making things up"?<br /><br />And I explicity indicated that...<br /> <br />01. We then test these explnations via observations. You've completely omitted this aspect yet again. <br /><br />02. We do not know Truth with a captial T. Nor have you outlined a way by which truth with a captial T can be obtained. This claim is absent in all theories, not just evolution.<br /><br />It would seem that you're yet another individual here that assumes we create theories by generalizing observations, which is the means that these theories are justified.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85160756475489795432011-08-04T02:48:03.497-07:002011-08-04T02:48:03.497-07:00marcel, you need mental help, now.marcel, you need mental help, now.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57901682400288238862011-08-03T00:54:38.156-07:002011-08-03T00:54:38.156-07:00... "we make things up" fails to include...<i>... "we make things up" fails to include...</i><br /><br />So does "use conjecture to create explanations". Is English your first language? Do you know what "conjecture" means, and how it is absolutely equivalent to "making things up"?<br /><br /><i>The term "full of crap" usually implies intentional deceit or talking nonsense.</i><br /><br />Really? Stop the presses!<br /><br /><i>... increasingly more accurate descriptions of reality...</i><br /><br />Thanks for the laugh. You mean solar "wind", black holes, dark matter, dark energy, 15 billion years-old universe...<br /><br /><i>However, this doesn't mean that Einstein's theory is "crap" in relationship to Newton's laws of motion.</i><br /><br />No, it just means it's crap in relationship to REALITY.<br /><br /><i>Marcel: (When you disagree that scientists claim that science is Truth, I only have to repeat "evolution is fact".)<br /><br />And I only need to repeat that "abortionists must die" and "God hates fags"?</i><br /><br />Are you saying science is as bad as fundie religion? Nice.<br /><br /><i>If anyone claims to know that evolution, the explanation, is absolutely and exhaustively True with a capital 'T', they are wrong...</i><br /><br />Er... are you telling ME? I know that. Tell it to Thorton and the other morons here.<br /><br /><i>... just as I'm guessing you'd say the same regarding Christians, abortionists, homosexuals.</i><br /><br />Er, I have big problems with people who kill children, so I'm not going to defend abortionists. I wouldn't kill them myself, but that's only because I'm too lazy to do it properly so that I don't get caught. I don't consider killing killers to be evil.<br /><br /><i>The fossil record indicates a change in organisms over time...</i><br /><br />Bzzt. Wrong. Unless you know of fossils that come with labels. Maybe the wayback machine is more advanced than I thought :P<br /><br /><i>You mean, see Lewontin's quote which is famous for being quote mined by creationists?</i><br /><br />Yep, that one. I fail to see anything in that article contradicting what he said.<br /><br /><i>First, do you mean "works" in more scenarios or is currently actively employed "successfully" more frequently?</i><br /><br />Both, in this case.<br /><br /><i>Second, How does having faith, rather than employing a scientific test, actually improve the outcome?</i><br /><br />Employing a scientific test each time would kill you very quickly. You'd die of starvation or of thirst.<br /><br /><i>For example what other choice do most consumers have?</i><br /><br />All the ones you indicated, if they're insane.<br /><br /><i>So, if they didn't have faith, then how would this result worse outcomes in the same cases?</i><br /><br />They would be forced to use your alternatives, which would kill them.<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, the cost and time required makes scientific tests prohibitive...</i><br /><br />Again with the truisms. Please add "water is wet" to the list.<br /><br /><i>However, if scientists...</i><br /><br />Yep. In LaLa land, evolution is also true.<br /><br /><i>So, it's simply not true that that science is better than faith "in more cases" - unless you conceding that faith merely appears to "works in more cases" than science the more ignorant we are.</i><br /><br />Er... you meant to wrote "it's not true that FAITH is better than SCIENCE". Responding to that correct statement, I am making a claim about FACTS as they are. You are making one about what you imagine them to be in your imaginary world where evolution is true. Which is why I claim that all evolutionists are crazy - they live in their imaginary world which has little relationship to the real one.<br /><br /><i>By the way, what your'e describing isn't faith either: it's inductivism. There is no supernatural explanation here to have faith in.</i><br /><br />Faith is "belief in things not seen". There is no mention of supernaturalism in there.<br /><br /><i>We've created theories about about how the way things *are*...</i><br /><br />LOL.Marcelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951354231483245521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7427881221475722202011-07-31T10:03:50.826-07:002011-07-31T10:03:50.826-07:00Marcel: Another falsehood. The correct phrase is &...Marcel: Another falsehood. The correct phrase is "we willfully reject any contrary interpretation". See Lewontin's famous quote:<br /><br />You mean, see Lewontin's quote which is <a href="http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Lewontin_on_materialism>famous for being quote mined by creationists</a>?<br /><br />Marcel: We need to know whether the food we're buying is poisoned or not. This is something relevant for billions of people each day. We can investigate the matter "scientifically", or just assume - on faith - that it's not poisoned. The second option works in a lot more cases than the first.<br /><br />First, do you mean "works" in more scenarios or is currently actively employed "successfully" more frequently? <br /><br />Second, How does having faith, rather than employing a scientific test, actually improve the outcome?<br /><br />For example what other choice do most consumers have? Check their own food for poison? Grow their own foods? In the majority of cases, consumers do not have the time / resources / knowledge to do either of these things. So, if they didn't have faith, then how would this result worse outcomes in the same cases? <br /><br />Furthermore, the cost and time required makes scientific tests prohibitive, which limits the frequency of it's application. However, if scientists had the knowledge to create an inexpensive device which could automatically scan food when you brought in into your home with no effort on your part, this would be employed more frequently and result in more accurate identification than faith. <br /><br />As an aside, I'd note that if something isn't prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that prevents us from doing it is knowing *how*. This includes making an impact on a cosmic scale, such as moving the orbits of planets, to how to scientifically test food for poison cost and time effectively. <br /><br />So, it's simply not true that that science is better than faith "in more cases" - unless you conceding that faith merely appears to "works in more cases" than science the more ignorant we are.<br /><br />By the way, what your'e describing isn't faith either: it's inductivism. There is no supernatural explanation here to have faith in. <br /><br />We've created theories about about how the way things *are*, rather than employing induction to conclude that we should experience unpoisoned food today, merely because it wasn't poisoned yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, etc.<br /><br />For example, we explain the fact that the majority of people do not die from eating positioned food from supermarkets because the majority people who work in supermarkets are not sociopaths that go around poisoning the food their store sells. Nor do most people think some supernatural power intercedes to prevent store employees from becoming sociopaths or acting out preexisting sociopathic tendencies to ensure the food they sell is safe.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9083642936981497062011-07-31T10:02:49.851-07:002011-07-31T10:02:49.851-07:00Marcel: Scott, you're repeating what I said an...Marcel: Scott, you're repeating what I said and thinking that you're contradicting me, which is at least amusing. When you say "... use conjecture to create explanations", that's less pretentiously said "we make things up".<br /><br />Which is a mischaracterization, as "we make things up" fails to include an objective criteria for better explanations and a means by which to criticize and discard them. <br /><br />Marcel: When you say science is not true with a capital T, I agree and rephrase it as "science is full of crap".<br /><br />Which is yet another mischaracterization. The term "full of crap" usually implies intentional deceit or talking nonsense. Apparently you're unaware that there are other forms of creating knowledge which results in increasingly more accurate descriptions of reality, despite being known to contain errors. <br /><br />We know that Einstein's theory of gravity (general relatively) conflicts with quantum mechanics. As such, we know that at last one theory has errors, but we're not sure which or where. However, this doesn't mean that Einstein's theory is "crap" in relationship to Newton's laws of motion.<br /><br />Marcel: (When you disagree that scientists claim that science is Truth, I only have to repeat "evolution is fact".)<br /><br />And I only need to repeat that "abortionists must die" and "God hates fags"? <br /><br />If anyone claims to know that evolution, the explanation, is absolutely and exhaustively True with a capital 'T', they are wrong - just as I'm guessing you'd say the same regarding Christians, abortionists, homosexuals. <br /><br />The fossil record indicates a change in organisms over time - even if by a designer changing a common design. The question is, what is the underling explanation for these changes?<br /><br />Or, more specifically, Darwinian evolution is a theory of how the knowledge (found in DNA) a biological replicator uses to cause it's environment to replicate itself was created. It's part of a larger theory of knowledge creation.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34573443422435773902011-07-29T22:49:18.996-07:002011-07-29T22:49:18.996-07:00Marcel said:
"So... no answer, huh? I though...Marcel said:<br /><br />"So... no answer, huh? I thought so. This new priesthood has not yet learned to defend its beliefs."<br /><br />I didn't say that Wozniak or anyone else used or referred to scientific papers when he built a computer, and your stupid request is, well, stupid. <br /><br />Without science, NO computers would exist. <br /><br />Think about this, if you can actually think:<br /><br />All of the raw materials for computers and the means to make controlled electrical power were here on the Earth WAY before there were any computers, but there were no computers or controlled electrical power until some people (scientists) gradually figured out how to generate controlled electrical power and use raw materials, and the appropriate, subsequently invented/processed materials to make computers. The process is still ongoing, as computers are improved and made more energy efficient and less expensive. Science is fundamental to all of technology and engineering. <br /><br />You claim to be a software programmer. You wouldn't have a job, or anything else, if it weren't for science. <br /><br />You can easily prove your non-dependence on science and everything it has provided and figured out, and you can easily prove your faith in your chosen god by getting rid of absolutely everything you own, use, or have and go out into the wilderness (naked) and rely only on prayer for survival. Absolutely nothing but prayer. Go ahead, do it.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89267923347434026152011-07-28T16:41:26.684-07:002011-07-28T16:41:26.684-07:00Marcel said...
So... no answer, huh? I though...<i>Marcel said...<br /><br /> So... no answer, huh? I thought so. This new priesthood has not yet learned to defend its beliefs.</i><br /><br />T: "Again, tell us when transistors were invented. Tell us when integrated circuits were invented. Tell us when semiconductor memory devices were invented."<br /><br />So... no answer, huh? I thought so. This new blustering Creationist has not yet learned to defend its empty claims.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70798942677330637722011-07-27T22:23:46.123-07:002011-07-27T22:23:46.123-07:00So... no answer, huh? I thought so. This new pries...So... no answer, huh? I thought so. This new priesthood has not yet learned to defend its beliefs.<br /><br />I would have been curious to see Scott's reply though...Marcelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951354231483245521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57080948812991615582011-07-27T20:32:47.105-07:002011-07-27T20:32:47.105-07:00Marcel said: "Again - name 3 of the papers St...Marcel said: "Again - name 3 of the papers Steve and Wozniak used to build their first computer."<br /><br />Do you really believe that computers would exist without science/scientists? <br /><br />I said: "Neither I, nor anyone I know of, would say that science/scientists are perfect..."<br /><br />Marcel said; "Yep. Not perfect. Also known as lying thieves. I guess both mean pretty much the same thing."<br /><br />Well then, I'll expect you to immediately and permanently get rid of everything you own, have, use, and benefit from in any way that was or is provided by science in any way whatsoever. That would be everything that mankind has ever made. Enjoy your cave, if you can find one without help from science. And whatever you do, don't use any sort of scientific thinking, knowledge, methods, or provisions to survive. Just pray and hope.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19883178168408549952011-07-27T04:29:19.437-07:002011-07-27T04:29:19.437-07:00Marcel said...
Again - name 3 of the papers S...<i>Marcel said...<br /><br /> Again - name 3 of the papers Steve and Wozniak used to build their first computer.</i><br /><br />Again, tell us when transistors were invented. Tell us when integrated circuits were invented. Tell us when semiconductor memory devices were invented.<br /><br />If you're too stupid to answer, we understand.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80638492577172485502011-07-27T00:24:10.618-07:002011-07-27T00:24:10.618-07:00Again - name 3 of the papers Steve and Wozniak use...Again - name 3 of the papers Steve and Wozniak used to build their first computer.<br /><br /><i>Neither I, nor anyone I know of, would say that science/scientists are perfect...</i><br /><br />Yep. Not perfect. Also known as lying thieves. I guess both mean pretty much the same thing.<br /><br />You're too stupid to keep wasting time on.Marcelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951354231483245521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40850541993129730782011-07-27T00:20:34.232-07:002011-07-27T00:20:34.232-07:00Thanks to Eocene for another example of science in...Thanks to Eocene for another example of science in action: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017818/Embryos-involving-genes-animals-mixed-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html<br /><br />Yep. All hail science!Marcelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951354231483245521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17467312265247783332011-07-27T00:18:42.896-07:002011-07-27T00:18:42.896-07:00Engineers may "build" computers and radi...Engineers may "build" computers and radios and MRI machines, but science/scientists did the foundational discoveries, research, and experiments, and therefore science/scientists provided what it takes to make those things possible and available. <br /><br />Engineers couldn't build squat if it weren't for science. Engineers use scientific means to engineer their projects. An 'assembler' can put parts together. Robots can assemble or "build" things. It's the underlying, foundational, scientific research and development that makes all technology possible and available. <br /><br />Neither I, nor anyone I know of, would say that science/scientists are perfect, but without science/scientists we would all still be living in caves, and then only if we could find a cave and were strong enough and smart enough to take the cave away from someone else, or something else (like a Cave Bear). <br /><br />You obviously don't understand that 'science' is the curiosity, observation, investigation, analysis, research, experimentation, refinement, and/or development, and/or understanding of pretty much anything. A caveman deliberately chipping a rock to make it into an spearpoint was doing science, unless he just happened to pick up a rock and chip it without any purpose in mind and just happened to end up with a spearpoint. To do it purposely, he had to think and be curious, and analyze, and experiment, and make mistakes, and refine, and repeat, and understand, and provide/develop spearpoints for himself and/or his tribe.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74690721940049526812011-07-26T23:03:00.330-07:002011-07-26T23:03:00.330-07:00No, you moron. Technology is engineering. This is ...No, you moron. Technology is engineering. This is science: http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html<br /><br />Extracts:<br />"... perfecting a method to collect whale snot, using a remote-control helicopter."<br />"... using slime mold to determine the optimal routes for railroad tracks."<br />"... on icy footpaths in wintertime, people slip and fall less often if they wear socks on the outside of their shoes."<br /><br />THIS is what scientists do. Engineers build computers and radios and MRI machines. Scientists play with slime mold and collect whale snot.Marcelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951354231483245521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74766973631693238382011-07-26T21:29:07.936-07:002011-07-26T21:29:07.936-07:00Marcel, you're making this too easy. I had hop...Marcel, you're making this too easy. I had hoped that you would come up with something better than 'belch... fart... crap... vomit... god-did-it, I believe it, and that settles it!'<br /><br />I didn't say anything about the discovery of electricity. I said you use "controlled electricity". Lightning is electricity, but it's not controlled.<br /><br />The controlled electricity, computer, and internet you use to post your massively stupid comments would not exist without science/scientists. <br /><br />Would you like to estimate how many scientific discoveries, projects, experiments, refinements, revisions, understandings, and provisions had to take place for you to be able to have and use controlled electricity, a computer, and the internet? <br /><br />Would you like to estimate how many of those scientific endeavors and provisions had to take place for you to be able to use, enjoy, and benefit from all of the other modern conveniences you obviously take for granted? <br /><br />Have you ever taken a pill or used medicine of any kind? Have you ever been to a doctor? Do you eat processed, pasteurized food? Do you drive a car? Fly in airplanes? Do you have a microwave oven? How about a telephone? Do you use cleaning and/or disinfecting products? Is your house or anything in it painted, stained, varnished, or chemically treated? Do you have modern appliances, a TV set, and a flush toilet that dumps your shit into a plumbing system that goes to a sewage treatment plant? Is the water you drink refined to remove impurities? Have you ever had an X-Ray, an MRI, or a CT-Scan? How about an angiogram? Dental work? Chemo-therapy? Eyeglasses? Hearing aid? Pacemaker? Brain surgery? <br /><br />If it weren't for science/scientists, you would likely have died long ago, or would never have been born. Everything you take for granted and denigrate science for was and is provided by science and technology, and without science there would be no technology. In fact, it can easily be said that technology IS science. At the very least, technology is inextricably connected to and dependent on science. <br /><br />You should be immensely grateful for science. <br /><br />On your blog, you say:<br /><br />"I'm an young-earth creationist. I believe the universe to be less than 10,000 years old."<br /><br />That statement helps to explain your psychosis.<br /><br />And then there are these:<br /><br />http://mdpopescu.blogspot.com/2008/11/biblical-laws-during-last-few-years-i.html<br /><br /><br />http://mdpopescu.blogspot.com/2007/11/too-many-people-overcrowding-is-common.htmlThe whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78638691511330989022011-07-26T15:18:28.985-07:002011-07-26T15:18:28.985-07:00Marcel said...
The whole truth, you moron, na...<i>Marcel said...<br /><br /> The whole truth, you moron, name 3 scientific papers that contributed to the discovery of electricity. Name the other 3 papers that Steve and Wozniak used to create the Apple computer. Go away and play with the other kids.</i><br /><br />Marcel, when were transistors invented? When were integrated circuits invented? When were semiconductor memory devices invented?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80440667622324543092011-07-26T14:14:10.128-07:002011-07-26T14:14:10.128-07:00The whole truth, you moron, name 3 scientific pape...The whole truth, you moron, name 3 scientific papers that contributed to the discovery of electricity. Name the other 3 papers that Steve and Wozniak used to create the Apple computer. Go away and play with the other kids.<br /><br />Scott, you're repeating what I said and thinking that you're contradicting me, which is at least amusing. When you say "<i>... use conjecture to create explanations</i>", that's less pretentiously said "we make things up". When you say science is not true with a capital T, I agree and rephrase it as "science is full of crap". (When you disagree that scientists claim that science is Truth, I only have to repeat "evolution is fact".)<br /><br />"<i>... we know our theories contain errors, which we systematically seek to discard.</i>" This is false (obviously), just try to discard the ToE and see where that gets you. (Of course, the answer is that evolution is not an error. The fact that you don't see the problem is, again, amusing.)<br /><br />"<i>We tentatively accept that the earth is billions of years old because an earth that is billions of years old is the best explanation of what we observe.</i>"<br /><br />Another falsehood. The correct phrase is "we willfully reject any contrary interpretation". See Lewontin's famous quote:<br /><br /><b>We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.</b><br /><br />"<i>If I have greater confidence that some assumption is true, such as God will protect me from the bites of poisonous snakes, does this mean I'm less likely to die from a poisonous snake bite?</i>"<br /><br />Huh? Of course not. If you have greater confidence, you have greater confidence. I think we're veering off track here - why don't you define what you meant by "better"?<br /><br />"<i>Just because science has reached tentative conclusions about things that intersect with your theistic faith, this doesn't mean that these conclusions are also based 'faith' in the same sense.</i>"<br /><br />I wasn't saying they are. I said faith works in more cases. For example, nobody checks to see if the food they're buying from the supermarket is poisoned, let alone doing a scientific study. There are more cases of people buying groceries than of people running scientific studies - ergo, faith works in MORE CASES than science. It was a simple claim :)<br /><br />To remind you of your question:<br /><br />"<i>... a better means of gaining knowledge exists that doesn't have this limitation</i>"<br /><br />We need to know whether the food we're buying is poisoned or not. This is something relevant for billions of people each day. We can investigate the matter "scientifically", or just assume - on faith - that it's not poisoned. The second option works in a lot more cases than the first.<br /><br />You're overly-complicating things. My claim is simple: most of science is irrelevant for the real life. That means that scientists are paid to generate irrelevant crap. Given that they're paid with tax money, and that taxation is theft, that makes them thieves. Why is that hard to understand? :PMarcelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951354231483245521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16685378383848975872011-07-26T06:07:00.099-07:002011-07-26T06:07:00.099-07:00Marcel barfed:
".....all science is crap. Sc...Marcel barfed:<br /><br />".....all science is crap. Scientists are thieves who couldn't make it in the real world."<br /><br />And:<br /><br />"....most of science is irrelevant."<br /><br />That's hilarious, coming from someone using controlled electricity, a computer, and the internet, that wouldn't exist if it weren't for science and scientists. I'd bet you also use and benefit from a LOT of other things that have been discovered, understood, refined, and provided by science/scientists.<br /><br />Faith in what? An imaginary god? Now that's insane.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29951749002413468042011-07-25T10:15:09.348-07:002011-07-25T10:15:09.348-07:00Marcel: Why is science crap? Because it's a pr...Marcel: Why is science crap? Because it's a pretentious way of saying "make things up and see what you can get away with", elevated to an infallible religion by its priests and sycophants. <br /><br />Again, you're making arguments from a lack of literacy in science. <br /><br />Theories are not generalized from observations. Rather, we start with a problem, then use conjecture to create explanations. We then make predictions based on this underlying explanation, then make observations. <br /><br />This is what happens at all levels. We tentatively accept that the earth is billions of years old because an earth that is billions of years old is the best explanation of what we observe. <br /><br />For example, it's "possible" that God created the earth, and everyone on it, last Thursday, with the appearance of age, implanted false memories, etc. But, we lack a good explanation as to why this would be the case, so we discard it. However, we cannot know that the earth is billions of years old is True with a capital 'T' because we cannot be 100% certain this did not occur. <br /><br />As such, that science is somehow "elevated to an infallible religion by its priests and sycophants." represents scientifically illiteracy. <br /><br />Scott: It would seem you holding some hidden assumption that a better means of gaining knowledge exists that doesn't have this limitation - therefore science is "crap" in comparison.<br /><br />Marcel: Of course I do, and it's not hidden. However, there are at least two meanings of "better":<br /><br />What's the rush? You did not reveal the assumption before explaining why it's better. As such, It's still hidden. <br /><br />Marcel: 1) Giving greater confidence. Faith is better in this sense.<br /><br />If I have greater confidence that some assumption is true, such as God will protect me from the bites of poisonous snakes, does this mean I'm less likely to die from a poisonous snake bite?<br /><br />Marcel: 2) Working in more cases. Faith is still better in some instances, worse in others. Experimenting (engineering) is better, usually. It's hard to judge in this case, though, because most of science is irrelevant.<br /><br />Just because science has reached tentative conclusions about things that intersect with your theistic faith, this doesn't mean that these conclusions are also based 'faith' in the same sense. <br /><br />Better explanations are tentatively accepted over poor explanations. This is because, in practice, we've discovered that we make more progress when we criticize better explanations, rather than poor explanations.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24064959069449656002011-07-25T10:14:17.822-07:002011-07-25T10:14:17.822-07:00Scott: ... as if science makes truth claims with a...Scott: ... as if science makes truth claims with a capital 'T'.<br /><br />Marcel: Scientists do. Science is not a person, so it can't do anything, but scientists are generally full of crap. (As in, 99%+ of them.)<br /><br />Again, if you were literate about science, you'd know that the sort of truth implied here isn't Truth with a capital 'T'. <br /><br />Science as a method of gaining knowledge lacks a means to know this sort of truth based on empiricism alone, due to the problem of induction. Furthermore, we know our theories contain errors, which we systematically seek to discard. <br /><br />For example, General relatively doesn't play well with quantum mechanics. As such, we know that at least one of these theories are wrong to some degree. The question is what parts contain errors and to what degree. <br /><br />However, this doesn't mean that what we have yet to discard must be entirely and completely True. At best, we can say it's withstood significant criticism, which is itself a form of knowledge. But that what has yet to be discarded cannot be said to be True with a capital 'T.' <br /><br />Positive support cannot come from empirical observations alone. <br /><br />At best, we can say that empirical observations more strongly collaborate an explanation, in comparison to some other explanation, but we cannot say that empirical observations are positive support that that explanation is actually true, in reality. <br /><br />We justify the tentative acceptance of theories based on the quality of their underlying explanations.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70659850535444690832011-07-24T12:35:15.070-07:002011-07-24T12:35:15.070-07:00I missed this:
It would seem you holding some hid...I missed this:<br /><br /><i>It would seem you holding some hidden assumption that a better means of gaining knowledge exists that doesn't have this limitation - therefore science is "crap" in comparison.</i><br /><br />Of course I do, and it's not hidden. However, there are at least two meanings of "better":<br /><br />1) Giving greater confidence. Faith is better in this sense.<br />2) Working in more cases. Faith is still better in some instances, worse in others. Experimenting (engineering) is better, usually. It's hard to judge in this case, though, because most of science is irrelevant.Marcelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951354231483245521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40037936586796966552011-07-24T12:13:39.945-07:002011-07-24T12:13:39.945-07:00Who are you agreeing with, Cornelius?
You (tongue...<i>Who are you agreeing with, Cornelius?</i><br /><br />You (tongue-in-cheek, of course):<br /><br /><i>... as if science makes truth claims with a capital 'T'.</i><br /><br />Scientists do. Science is not a person, so it can't do anything, but scientists are generally full of crap. (As in, 99%+ of them.)<br /><br />Why is science crap? Because it's a pretentious way of saying "make things up and see what you can get away with", elevated to an infallible religion by its priests and sycophants. An astronomy book is less sane, on average, than even an astrology book, or the I Ching, and instead of committing the authors to a mental institution, we give them even more money. There is pretty much no discernible relationship between modern science and the real world - by definition, that makes scientists insane. (I go by "insanity means your worldview does not fit the actual world".)<br /><br />There are a small number of scientists who do not fit this, of course; they are usually gainfully employed. But the vast majority are lazy bums who profit from the worship of the uneducated masses. Just like priests, imagine that.Marcelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951354231483245521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31356149763581852692011-07-24T09:24:09.495-07:002011-07-24T09:24:09.495-07:00Marcel: Cornelius only discusses evolution, at lea...Marcel: Cornelius only discusses evolution, at least on this blog…<br /><br />If I only "discussed" Microsoft Windows and said it wasn't a "True" OS because it doesn't run on every CPU that exists, wouldn't this have further reaching implications? After all, with the possible exception of Linux, this can be said about all operating systems, right?<br /><br />This is what I'm referring to. <br /><br />Science cannot justify anything using empirical observations alone, let alone evolutionary theory. As such Cornelius' objections are merely hand waving over a theory he personally objects to. It's irrational thinking. <br /><br />Just as my objections to Windows not being a "true" OS because it didn't run on all CPUs would be arbitrary hand waving against a particular OS, since all operating system have the same problem. My objection would be irrational as well. <br /><br />Marcel: I agree - all science is crap.<br /><br />Who are you agreeing with, Cornelius? Because, I don't recall Cornelius explicitly saying all of science is crap. Nor am I suggesting it either. <br /><br />So, exactly who are you agreeing with?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.com