An excellent even debate on the universe having a purpose with Richard Dawkins

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
So you are saying that world views have no impact on scientific naturalism? I disagree.

World views have as much impact on scientific naturalism as it have to carpentry in my book.

Disagree completely, when looking at the fossil record for human evolution it is easy to see.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
Disagree completely, when looking at the fossil record for human evolution it is easy to see.

That sentence made no sense to me. Scientific naturalism compare empirical data with empirical data, fin.

Originally Posted by JemyM
That sentence made no sense to me. Scientific naturalism compare empirical data with empirical data, fin.

So you are saying there is no room for interpretation of data?

Humans come from standing up apes , ardipithicus was a standing up ape so ardipithicus is in our family tree

Whale's ears transformed from land to sea ones ,

Those are hard facts , we know that it happen , we know how and we know why so what is left to interpret ?

He's saying that the conclusion is up for interpretation. If the data is 2+2 then the conclusion can be whatever u want it to be, but what he is saying is that in scientific naturalism there is just one true conclusion which would be 4. You could say it was 5 and it would be A conclusion but it wouldn't be the true one.

Another example: the definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.
However coachpotato said in another thread that we are still in a recession even though the last few quarters did not report negative GDP growth. Coachpotato can say it's a recession but his conclusion is not true. His conclusion is a "wrong interpretation" and thus his conclusion is wrong too.


Btw: jemym if that's not what you mean then just say so, but that's what I gathered.

Originally Posted by Tragos
Humans come from standing up apes , ardipithicus was a standing up ape so ardipithicus is in our family tree

Whale's ears transformed from land to sea ones ,

Those are hard facts , we know that it happen , we know how and we know why so what is left to interpret ?

Ardipithicus is a perfect example of interpretation of data. There were 150 000 fossils in a very large area that they used to make ardi and it was made up of tiny fragments. How does one know if they got it right?

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
Ardipithicus is a perfect example of interpretation of data. There were 150 000 fossils in a very large area that they used to make ardi and it was made up of tiny fragments. How does one know if they got it right?

Because same species usually have same bones and scientists put all those bones together . In case you don't know science can say which bones belong to who, this is the main reason slightly different fossils from the same area made the kadabba species .
There is nothing to interpret , so far the only thing disputed is the age of the fossils not what animal they belong to.

The bones werent intact, the bones were broken into tiny pieces, they also had many leftover bone pieces. It is entirely possible that they had a human and an ape there that they merged together to get ardi.

Originally Posted by JemyM
World views have as much impact on scientific naturalism as it have to carpentry in my book.

you know what bobby? get to your room right now and beg jesus for forgiveness. i hate you so much. you are a fucking thorn in everyone's side. you are cold and deserve to be broken open. you are a robot. until otherwise proven innnocent. we must hold you in jail. thus the jail is an inside out cracking of your fuckking egg head shity dirty liar.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
The bones werent intact, the bones were broken into tiny pieces, they also had many leftover bone pieces. It is entirely possible that they had a human and an ape there that they merged together to get ardi.

*image*

No it isn't , your speculations have no place in scientific reason .
There are no homo fossils among 4m year old rocks , apart from the shape of the pelvis there is nothing human in Ardi , you can not mix bones and get a new creature .
Science is never shy to recognise an error , destroy a well constructed theory if it is proven to be wrong and make new one. Do not forget that scientists live under the "publish or perish" rule and their work is reviewed before publishing and even after that everyone and his mother will use scientific reason , experiment and observation to prove or disprove , agree or disagree .

Science is getting into the job to go out try yourself , flirt , charm and have real sex ; religion is to fantasise about sex and play with yourself instead then come out and say that you know what sex is and how it should be.

To know something, we must first establish that what we perceive and comprehend can be objective and factual knowledge.

We can't establish that, so everything we claim to know is based on the assumption that we can, actually, know.

Everything science tells us is a working theory. To trust it fully, is to consider ourselves infallible.

It's possible to acknowledge this uncertainty of ourselves, while still working with the theories as if they were established facts. I don't think the best approach is to pretend there is no uncertainty. It seems to me that Jemy and Tragos like to have faith in science, like the Christian has faith in Christianity. Not necessarily bad if you feel better pretending that you can really know, but it's never something I've been able to do myself.

Originally Posted by Tragos
No it isn't , your speculations have no place in scientific reason .
There are no homo fossils among 4m year old rocks , apart from the shape of the pelvis there is nothing human in Ardi , you can not mix bones and get a new creature .
Science is never shy to recognise an error , destroy a well constructed theory if it is proven to be wrong and make new one. Do not forget that scientists live under the "publish or perish" rule and their work is reviewed before publishing and even after that everyone and his mother will use scientific reason , experiment and observation to prove or disprove , agree or disagree .

Science is getting into the job to go out try yourself , flirt , charm and have real sex ; religion is to fantasise about sex and play with yourself instead then come out and say that you know what sex is and how it should be.

4 million year old rocks are suspect too, until the various dating methods can agree somewhat on a single date (other than the argon methods) i dont put much faith in them. Even if ardi is proven wrong i doubt that nothing more than a minor quote would be in such magazines and would still eb referenced for years to come.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
So you are saying there is no room for interpretation of data?

Actually, in comparison is a better word. Your interpretion is locked to a bulk of prior data that must be acknowledged. If your purpose is to understand how the world tick, you can't sit on your room, lights out, and think-think-think, you are forced to wade through an ocean of data.

Originally Posted by Pladio
Btw: jemym if that's not what you mean then just say so, but that's what I gathered.

Basically it's what I meant. People who do not understand this tend to argue that people holding this position are flip-flopping, but that's not true. The calculation do not change, the conclusion is always based on the data and thus changes when the data changes.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
The bones werent intact, the bones were broken into tiny pieces, they also had many leftover bone pieces. It is entirely possible that they had a human and an ape there that they merged together to get ardi.

Still deep into these creationist sites I see.

A couple of quotes comes to mind, the first from a former Swedish arch-bishop;
"They (creationists) deny Gods gift of reason"

The second from a christian podcast;
"Creationism is the most corruptive force there is within Christianity, because each person you convince that it's either God or evolution, is one step closer to atheism. This because as soon as you open your mind, take the class, read the books, see the evidence and understand the discipline, you believe you have to give up God".

Finally;
"The creationist God is an assimilation between the God of deceit and the God of gaps."

They both clearly demonstrate the validity of any conclusion

The "scentific method" drawing above uses the word "facts" - but there are no facts. There is "data" - and data will always be limited by our capacity for perception and comprehension.

So, it's either a fragile working theory called fact - or a leap of faith called fact.

Neither are very factual, though.

The issue is the human mind, and human nature.

We simply feel better when something seems assured and unchanging. In that way, we can avoid the unpleasant "unknown" factor. But it will likely not go away any time soon - so why not just acknowledge it and give up the rigid attitude

That goes for both sides.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
To know something, we must first establish that what we perceive and comprehend can be objective and factual knowledge.

We can't establish that, so everything we claim to know is based on the assumption that we can, actually, know.

Everything science tells us is a working theory. To trust it fully, is to consider ourselves infallible.

It's possible to acknowledge this uncertainty of ourselves, while still working with the theories as if they were established facts. I don't think the best approach is to pretend there is no uncertainty. It seems to me that Jemy and Tragos like to have faith in science, like the Christian has faith in Christianity. Not necessarily bad if you feel better pretending that you can really know, but it's never something I've been able to do myself.

The whole radical skepticism thingie is something every student of philosophy toy around with for awhile before they get into epistemology. Everyone who studied epistemology know that this statement is wrong;
"To know something, we must first establish that what we perceive and comprehend can be objective and factual knowledge."

Know is a human word of a human origin. It means verified, well-supported belief, setting such beliefs apart from just belief. Science is the method of verification, to rigorously test-test-test. Facts are thus strongly verified beliefs.

"We can't know facts" falls on it's own statement, since it's a conclusion built on gathered data.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The "scentific method" drawing above uses the word "facts" - but there are no facts. There is "data" - and data will always be limited by our capacity for perception and comprehension.

It's only by understanding the limits of perception and comprehension you will begin to understand why the scientific method is necessary to overcome the limits of the human mind. Thus, the scientific method is rooted in an understanding of the limitations of perception and comprehension, not in denial of understanding of the limitations of perception and comprehension.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
So, it's either a fragile working theory called fact - or a leap of faith called fact.

False dichotomy. Facts are strongly verified, consistent and coherent beliefs, where as faith is loyalty to beliefs. Facts thus changes the very instant the data changes, where as faith tend to deny data alltogether in order to preserve former beliefs.

Originally Posted by JemyM
The whole radical skepticism thingie is something every student of philosophy toy around with for awhile before they get into epistemology. Everyone who studied epistemology know that this statement is wrong;
"To know something, we must first establish that what we perceive and comprehend can be objective and factual knowledge."

Know is a human word of a human origin. It means verified, well-supported belief, setting such beliefs apart from just belief. Science is the method of verification, to rigorously test-test-test. Facts are thus strongly verified beliefs.

"We can't know facts" falls on it's own statement, since it's a conclusion built on gathered data.

False dichotomy. Facts are strongly verified, consistent and coherent beliefs, where as faith is loyalty to beliefs. Facts thus changes the very instant the data changes, where as faith tend to deny data alltogether in order to preserve former beliefs.

Yes yes, I'm a child for pointing out the obvious.

Really, Jemy, all I'm suggesting is that you acknowledge my childlike observation.

Facts are "strongly verified beliefs" will do just fine

It doesn't matter what words you use, be it "strong" or "almost proven" - it's impossible to actually know. We have data that we can perceive and possibly comprehend and that's what we work with. It COULD potentially be 100% factually valid - but it could also be completely and utterly false - because there is something major we can't perceive yet (or ever), or a "thoroughly tested fact" that turned out not to be thoroughly tested, because OOPS an unknown rested somewhere and no one thought about it - even with all the respected scientists at work.

I'm a great supporter of the "scientific method" - but I'm not such a big fan of pretending to be absolutly certain of something that's impossible to be certain of.

So, it's more how you approach it and how you communicate it that I think is unhealthy. It's just not a great way to stay open and prepared for when things are not what they seem.

It's only by understanding the limits of perception and comprehension you will begin to understand why the scientific method is necessary to overcome the limits of the human mind. Thus, the scientific method is rooted in an understanding of the limitations of perception and comprehension, not in denial of understanding of the limitations of perception and comprehension.

Oh, and YOU understand the limits of perception and comprehension?

I don't think anyone does - but I must congratulate you if that's a "fact"