Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[HAPMinistries]

First off this question is falicious due to the way evolution works. There was never something that became a chicken, there is no point if you took the entire line of chickens from a non chicken and said, "This here is the first chicken." you might have a group of the line that you could say is where the chicken line forms, but no there is no answer to the question :>

Evolution is the origin of "Species".
The post you are responding to is the origin of the Universe.
Not evolution.

But you are right, there is no possible answer UNLESS something eternal existed.

Thus, my final conclusion, nothing can possibly exist unless something eternal exists.

 

[Cabal]

Lets take a general approach to the world.

Every continent man has lived on, they have worshiped some form of spiritual being.

Today, 2010, the majority of the world believes a 'spiritual' world exists. This people have concluded by personal experiences and observations.

NOW, add a scientific methodology that eliminates anything on the grounds of being spiritual, and you exclude what the majority of the world knows exists, thus, the sudden loss of respectability to methodological naturalism approach to science.

And yes, science is a philosophy.

It's funny how other religions suddenly count for creationists when you're trying to make an argumentum ad populum fallacy for religion....

 

[Nabobalis]

The original point:
'Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?'


And, yes it is. Methodological Naturalism takes a self defeating approach that is biased towards anything that does not fit into it's box, thus the backlash.

Lets take a general approach to the world.

Every continent man has lived on, they have worshiped some form of spiritual being.

Today, 2010, the majority of the world believes a 'spiritual' world exists. This people have concluded by personal experiences and observations.

NOW, add a scientific methodology that eliminates anything on the grounds of being spiritual, and you exclude what the majority of the world knows exists, thus, the sudden loss of respectability to methodological naturalism approach to science.

And yes, science is a philosophy.

[FONT=&quot]But those spiritual events are not evidence of anything; you can get those events by taking LSD. That scientific methodology is what gives people all the luxuries that we take for granted in the world, so I don't think many people think it has a lack of respectability.[/FONT]

 

[HAPMinistries]

Now THAT'S an ad hominem.

LOL!

Sorry if I have been giving you too much of a hard time.

 

[Belk]

THANK YOU!

Very intelligent answer!

We don't know.

But this much I do know, this regression of existence can not be solved unless something eternal, always existing, exists.

Feel free to offer some evidence to support your assertion.

 

[Cabal]

LOL!

Sorry if I have been giving you too much of a hard time.

Nah, it's cool. I'm barely breaking a sweat

 

[Nabobalis]

LOL!

Sorry if I have been giving you too much of a hard time.

Well if you want to call out people for personal attacks on people best not be two faced about it. Two faced is rather harsh but I'm out of words.

Side note: Argh! MY damn firefox likes to give my texts different fonts and sizes randomly! I'm going back to firefox 3.

 

[HAPMinistries]

[FONT=&quot]But those spiritual events are not evidence of anything; you can get those events by taking LSD. That scientific methodology is what gives people all the luxuries that we take for granted in the world, so I don't think many people think it has a lack of respectability.[/FONT]

Um, no, not the methodology, the methodology is just a philosophy.
It is the discoveries, real discoveries, empirical discoveries, that enrich out lives.

That being said, it is when Methodological Naturalism wants to be partial against anything spiritual, but in turn believe all life came from a rock, that makes people go, hmmm.

 

[Nabobalis]

Um, no, not the methodology, the methodology is just a philosophy.
It is the discoveries, real discoveries, empirical discoveries, that enrich out lives.

That being said, it is when Methodological Naturalism wants to be partial against anything spiritual, but in turn believe all life came from a rock, that makes people go, hmmm.

That methodologyis what underpins the method and that is the method used for the discoveries that enrich out lives.

No one believes that all life came from a rock.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Evolution is the origin of "Species".
The post you are responding to is the origin of the Universe.
Not evolution.

But you are right, there is no possible answer UNLESS something eternal existed.

Thus, my final conclusion, nothing can possibly exist unless something eternal exists.

As as you have been shown, this is a false assertion. If you disagree - as you obviously do - PROVE IT.

 

[matthewgar]

Evolution is the origin of "Species".
The post you are responding to is the origin of the Universe.
Not evolution.

But you are right, there is no possible answer UNLESS something eternal existed.

Thus, my final conclusion, nothing can possibly exist unless something eternal exists.

Where do you get the idea something eternal must exist from my post heh?

Also it was used to point out the fallacy of your, "SHow me something becoming something else." Even if you saw every single offspring through a female line from dinosaur to chicken, you wouldn't see at any single spot looking 10 up and 10 down something becoming another species. If you looked every 100 you would see change. THis is the point were making, if a cat became something completly different in the same way a reptile over time became a cat, then you would have to jump far down the line, not look at 1000 years of cats. You might notice big differences if you lined up 1000 years of your house cat back down it's line to a ancestral cat, but outside of breeding the differences wouldn't be that noticable over short times, and certainly not 150 years since Origin of species.

 

[matthewgar]

Well if you want to call out people for personal attacks on people best not be two faced about it. Two faced is rather harsh but I'm out of words.

Side note: Argh! MY damn firefox likes to give my texts different fonts and sizes randomly! I'm going back to firefox 3.

Is itlike the problem I keep running into, if someone bolds or different sizes their text, and I pass through it, I'm stuck with the text wanting to be bolded, under lined or different size? Only thing I found that seems to work is to start over, really is a pain when I delete bulk text and get that.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The original point:
'Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?'

And the consensus is no.

And, yes it is. Methodological Naturalism takes a self defeating approach that is biased towards anything that does not fit into it's box, thus the backlash.

Methodological naturalism is the technique everyone uses everyday for pretty much everything. It's a case of proposing explanations for things that can be tested. The alternative is proposing explanations that can't be tested and can't be determined to be true or false. Greatest invention since language.

Lets take a general approach to the world.

OK.

Every continent man has lived on, they have worshiped some form of spiritual being.

Every continent man has lived on, they thought lighting was caused by gods. Every continent man has lived on, they thought demons caused disease.

Getting the point?

Today, 2010, the majority of the world believes a 'spiritual' world exists. This people have concluded by personal experiences and observations.

Yes to the first part, no to the second. Most people are religious the way they're American or Masons: it's a cultural teaching.

NOW, add a scientific methodology that eliminates anything on the grounds of being spiritual, and you exclude what the majority of the world knows exists, thus, the sudden loss of respectability to methodological naturalism approach to science.

But MN doesn't do that. It excludes nothing. Philosophical Naturalism does.

And yes, science is a philosophy.

Nope. You can repeat falsehoods as you like, but it won't help.

 

[sfs]

Now THAT'S an ad hominem.

Actually, it's not; it's an insult. Skimming the last couple of pages of this thread(*), I've seen lots of accusations of "ad hominem", not one of which referred to an actual example of an ad hominem fallacy. "You are an idiot" and "your argument is worthless" are not fallacious arguments, for the simple reason that they're not arguments at all. What they are is abuse. (They may or may not be true as statements, but arguments are never true or false: arguments are valid or invalid.)

(*) I'm certainly not about to read the whole thing.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Infinite regression is a hole in reality that must be reconciled.

No, it's not. Infinite regression doesn't apply. And if it's a problem with the universe, it's equally a problem with god. And the answer to your question is, of course, the egg.

Plainly, ANYTHING that has a beginning, is part of this chain. But this chain can not possibly exist without having a first link. A first link can not possibly be finite.

Why not? You keep making these statements as though they are self-evidently true.

They're not.

Do you understand?

Yes. Apparently you don't.

I have no problem with the universe and time coming into existence at the very same time, but what I do have a problem with is the Universe and time having a beginning with no regression to come from.

They can't definitionally. You're really not getting it. I'll give you a metaphor: what is North of the North Pole.

Where you go wrong is saying "the universe and time coming into existence." They didn't come into existence. Think it through, chiclet.

That is a break in logic, and frankly, sanity.

You're the one who can't his head around it. We're fine.

You can not say something was born, but not give an answer from what.

You claim the universe was "born". Physics and logic say otherwise.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Now THAT'S an ad hominem.

Nope. Still not.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Um, no, not the methodology, the methodology is just a philosophy.

No, actually it's not.

It is the discoveries, real discoveries, empirical discoveries, that enrich out lives.

First correct thing you've said.

That being said, it is when Methodological Naturalism wants to be partial against anything spiritual, but in turn believe all life came from a rock, that makes people go, hmmm.

Since you clearly don't understand MN or evolutionary theory or abiogenesis, it's going to be hard to deal with this.

 

[Naraoia]

I think HAPM deserves a round of applause, everyone.

He finally managed to correctly identify a fallacy (although given how often our little hypocrite accuses people of ad homs, it was inevitable really).

Like the stopped clock.

Sadly, not here.

Look, I have a degree in evolutionary biology from one of the top UK universities, and believe me, I didn't scrape through my exams by a hair. I like to think I actually have a reasonably good idea of what evolution does and doesn't say.

And no, that's not an appeal to authority. That's pointing out that having a decent education in a subject has a tendency to lead to an understanding of said subject.

And enter the time of the gaps fallacy.

In what way? Are you arguing that the necessary time wasn't available? (in which case I'm happy to argue that it was) Or are you arguing that so much time is not necessary?

By the way, these guys are still just lizards, and these ones are still just green algae.

And that's probably the fastest that phenotypic evolution gets under "natural" mechanisms. I'd say it's a lot faster than good old Charles Darwin ever expected, but it's still not fast enough to make cats out of dogs in an observable period.

I ask again: under evolutionary assumptions, why should we expect anything to turn into a "completely different" species in front of our eyes?

Of course, my intention is not to tear down evolution...

It obviously isn't

I appreciate your view on Theory and Hypothesis, and you are correct. Sadly, a lot of people regard these things as Law, and that is the horrible misconception...

Um, subtle terminological distinctions notwithstanding, evolution is still one of the best supported ideas in science. Call it what you want, it doesn't change that fact.

'Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?'

And ABSOLUTELY YES, because of the constant misrepresentation of information, claiming to empirically know things that is not empirically known, etc.

What level of certainty constitutes "knowing"?

Well it's not that complicated. When I come across the Wiki page, it had it well illustrated.

Illustrating something doesn't equal demonstrating that it happens.

It showed taking different types of birds, kept having them reproduce with different types of birds until finally, the end birds could not reproduce with the original type of bird. They called it speciation.

Now, simply reverse the order.

Take the last bird and reproduce it back through the line, and you will have the original type of bird. Not rocket science here people.

Then cite us a study that actually did it, will you? Thought experiments are not generally considered a form of empirical evidence

 

[Naraoia]

What part of 1 did you not understand?

When people demand that someone show "just one" example of X, they are generally trying to make the point that zero examples of X exist. A list is a perfectly appropriate counter to that point.

If you often experience misunderstandings like that, perhaps it's time to work on your clarity.

I did call your bluff.
You have been exposed.
Everyone knows you are a fake.

*snort*

And thus enters the paradox.

Empirical evidence OF evolution would disprove evolution.

If it would disprove evolution, it's not empirical evidence of evolution, genius.

So it has to happen over a unknowable amount of time that there is no way of empirically knowing, aka, the Time of the Gaps fallacy.

Except, (1) deep time is pretty well-established, (2) large-scale evolution in deep time is evidenced by gazillions of accurately dated transitional fossils. Many of which demonstrate kinds of change that can be extrapolated from the smaller amounts of change we can directly observe.

Still, I am not here to bash evolution,

Then don't bash evolution?

I am here to support the thread where it says:

'Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?'

And I say YES. Evolution is too much of a hypothesis for people to regard it is factual, yet people do... sad really.

It's not the fault of scientists that you don't understand just how well-supported a hypothesis evolution is. That even happens to be a subject with an extensive popular science literature. It's a rather thoroughly communicated issue.

 

[Naraoia]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Easy. Amniotes existed before chickens

dolt

HAP learns new word, likes it.

And the consensus is no.

Really? I must have missed the part where a consensus was reached in all this HAPpy fun. Alternatively, it may have been before HAP entered the scene, in which case it was so many pages ago that I just forgot