Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[HARK!]

What do you mean by 'created'?

.. If I have the time, we can put your claim to the test. That test starts by asking the above question.

That question is answered in the link.

It starts by reading what I wrote on the subject.

 

[public hermit]

Absolute factual pure history.

I admire the fact that you absolutely cannot be deterred from your position. I don't agree. But it's admirable.

 

[SelfSim]

... What this means is that what we view as rock solid reality, in reality is little more than empty space.

Yes.. I see you giving your meaning to 'reality' there, of being that of 'empty space'.
(I'm not at all sure that its a particularly useful meaning though) ..
[QUOTE="HARK!]Is this woman spinning to the right or to the left?[/QUOTE]'Right' or 'left' relative to what, precisely?
Also, is the 'rotating image' what you mean by 'this woman'?

 

[AV1611VET]

I admire the fact that you absolutely cannot be deterred from your position. I don't agree. But it's admirable.

Thank you, sir! I take that as a compliment!

 

[sjastro]

Exactly backwards. Teaching that's there's More than one possiblity enhances critical thinking, it doesn't stifle it.

Try reading my post again in order to comprehend it instead of reading your own ideas into it.
Your response is the very example of a lack of critical thinking at work.

 

[SelfSim]

That question is answered in the link.

It starts by reading what I wrote on the subject.

Apologies .. I missed reading that link. I notice its starts with axioms assumed (by you) as being 'true'.

At that point you have departed the scientific method .. (enough said .. Belief!)

 

[HARK!]

Yes.. I see you giving your meaning to 'reality' there, of being that of 'empty space'.
(I'm not at all sure that its a particularly useful meaning though

The science is useful in understanding how our perception of reality clouds the reality of reality.

I don't have a clue what you mean by 'transcends your own perception'. But I do understand how we arrive at meanings for 'reality'.

So tell me, since by far, reality is composed primarily of vacuous space; how do you arrive from that starting point, to your personal belief of the meaning of reality?

'Right' or 'left' relative to what, precisely?

Let's go with the right and left edges of your screen.

Also, is the 'rotating image' what you mean by 'this woman'?

Yes.

 

[HARK!]

Apologies .. I missed reading that link. I notice its starts with axioms assumed (by you) as being 'true'.

At that point you have departed the scientific method .. (enough said .. Belief!)

Logical arguments begin with axioms. If we can't agree that the sky is blue; no amount of logic, or theory, will explain why it is blue.

If you choose to believe what flies in the face of the empirical evidence; then I'll leave you to your own perception.

 

[SelfSim]

The science is useful in understanding how our perception of reality clouds the reality of reality.

'The reality of reality' there, appears to be some kind of 'truism', which to me, is completely empty in its meaning.
Science however, is trying to define what we mean by that term: 'reality' (I call this 'objective reality' .. to denote the (observable) differences from our everyday meaning we give to that term). Whatever last best tested theory in science, brings with it, the closest science ever gets to what we might view as 'scientific truth' .. (just me trying to be sociable and not completely hard-lined here).

'Reality' is objectively and demonstrably, not 'a thing' which exists independently form our minds. The concept that it is, largely comes from a fixed focus on philosophical realism .. (which is based on human beliefs). That philosophy can be adapted by the scientific method but any 'true' posit it brings with it, if found as being untestable, renders any conclusions formed as moot and thus, are bypassed (aka: ignored) in science. (Same goes for any other philiosophically posited truths).

So tell me, since by far, reality is composed primarily of vacuous space; how do you arrive from that starting point, to your personal belief of the meaning of reality?

(Re: the underlined bits): I never said that was my personal belief .. IIRC, that was yours!?
I have two versions of what I mean whenever I use the terms: 'reality', 'exists', 'is', (etc). Those versions depend entirely on my active mind, which is capable of thinking in different ways. Of relevance, when we're talking about 'reality', those two different ways are by belief, or via the scientific method.

To clarify, I have an operational (objectively testable) definition of 'a belief'. It is:
"A belief is that which I hold to be true out of preference that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic."

Let's go with the right and left edges of your screen.

I am familiar with this image, and how people see it differently. If it helps to move your point along, I can see both directions of rotation, from time to time.

 

[HARK!]

I am familiar with this image, and how people see it differently. If it helps to move your point along, I can see both directions of rotation, from time to time.

I can see both directions at will; but it's good that you can see both directions. Could you see both directions before you became familiar enough with this image to understand the bias of your perception?

 

[SelfSim]

Logical arguments begin with axioms.

Exactly .. and they can either be believed as being true or, they can have already been objectively tested by following the scientific method.
The logic only tracks the consistency of the argument. A believed in posit with logic applied, can only ever, at best, return the originally posited truth value, whereas an original posit which has already been tested, tracks the already tested objectivity of those results .. which can then be added to, (usually), by some new theory's additionally tested predictions.

If we can't agree that the sky is blue; no amount of logic, or theory, will explain why it is blue.

Science's measurable version of 'blue', is defined by position in the EM spectrum (which permits consistent detections of it .. via spectrum analysers). Someone who sees a 'blue' sky however, when another may see it as say 'purple-ish', at sunset say, demonstrates how science achieves more consistent observations of the sky's colour that scientists can then agree on.

If you choose to believe what flies in the face of the empirical evidence; then I'll leave you to your own perception.

Well, thank you for that demonstration of precisely where 'believing in' something takes a discussion .. (meanwhile, science just keep on moving on).

 

[SelfSim]

Could you see both directions before you became familiar enough with this image to understand the bias of your perception?

Being honest: no! But it certainly demonstrated how different minds perceive 'reality' in different ways ... At which point, is where science then demonstrates its own usefulness .. which is why it should be taught in schools .. where being 'useful' is still of value to society.

 

[HARK!]

Science's measurable version of 'blue', is defined by position in the EM spectrum (which permits consistent detections of it .. via spectrum analysers). Someone who sees a 'blue' sky however, when another may see it as say 'purple-ish', at sunset say, demonstrates how science achieves more consistent observations of the sky's colour that scientists can then agree on.

You don't seem to be understanding. You can quantify the frequency any way you want; But if I say "the sky is blue because...;" and you say "wait just a minute; the sky is orange it's impossible for the sky to be blue;" then any hope of presenting a logical argument of why the sky is blue comes to a grinding halt.

The premise of a logical argument is an axiom.

 

[HARK!]

Being honest: no! But it certainly demosntrated how different minds perceive 'reality' in different ways ... At which point, is where science then demonstrates its usefulness .. which is why it should be taught in schools .. where being 'useful' is still of value to society.

What is the practical use for an undemonstrated hypothesis?

How does one "use" that, I mean outside of entertainment purposes?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Logical arguments begin with axioms. If we can't agree that the sky is blue; no amount of logic, or theory, will explain why it is blue.

If you choose to believe what flies in the face of the empirical evidence; then I'll leave you to your own perception.

actually we know very well why the sky is blue, this assertion is more indicative of your lack of understanding of empirical evidence and the science behind our understanding of the nature of the world we live in.

Sorry.

 

[SelfSim]

What is the practical use for an undemonstrated hypothesis?

How does one "use" that, I mean outside of entertainment purposes?

An untested, but still testable in principle (ie: practice or theory) hypothesis, is a type of testable belief (if you like). This is demonstrably different from a pure belief (or speculation, fantasy, sc-fi, delusion, mirage, superstition, etc, etc) .. and that's what makes it a useful concept.

Technologies, for instance, are based around the concept of testable beliefs (or untested, yet testable hypotheses). I gave examples of those in the case of abiogenesis hypotheses .. there are many, many more examples of untested, yet testable hypothesis, which become useful (along their own timelines).

 

[SelfSim]

actually we know very well why the sky is blue, this assertion is more indicative of your lack of understanding of empirical evidence and the science behind our understanding of the nature of the world we live in.

Sorry.

Science has an explanation (theory) for what a scientist means when they speak of: 'a blue sky'. That explanation becomes part of science's objective reality (once abundantly tested). Not all non scientifically thinking humans would know that however .. which is why science should be taught in schools .. (otherwise, they'd never 'know' that).

 

[HARK!]

actually we know very well why the sky is blue, this assertion is more indicative of your lack of understanding of empirical evidence and the science behind our understanding of the nature of the world we live in.

Sorry.

Apparently you don't understand what I wrote. The subject of argument was not about knowing why the sky is blue, nor even about empirical evidence. The subject is that the premise of a logical argument is an axiom.

If we can't agree that water is wet; then no amount of reason will explain to you that it will dampen hydrophilic objects which come in contact with it.

 

[renniks]

By random variation and natural selection.

Nope. God knit me together.

 

[renniks]

Try reading my post again in order to comprehend it instead of reading your own ideas into it.
Your response is the very example of a lack of critical thinking at work.

Nonsense. Buying Into the most popular theory isn't critical thinking.