Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, I agree it is necessary, because some of those who disagree with young earth creationism seem to use the term "embedded age" to imply God somehow deceiving mankind by creating a universe that appears to be older than scientists theorise that it is. For that reason, I prefer to us the term "apparent age" when referring to phenomena such as trees and plants being created with sufficient maturity as to have "their seed in themselves," and Adam being created as a mature man, not as a newly-born baby. To have a meaningful discussion, we need to be sure that words and phrases (for example, "embedded age") will mean the same to the readers as they do to the writer.
I don't know that it is assumed, There is generally ontological commitment to the elements of physical theories, but what that amounts to does not seem to be the same as what you are saying. I can't quite trust you not to be attempting to equivocate methodological materialism and metaphysical materialism for rhetorical purposes.
It's quite clearly an assumption, and it becomes really clear in the mind-body question. It's embedded into the language that we use to describe scientific "facts", and the line between method and metaphysics isn't always clearly delineated because the method is only partially understood by most people. The notion that "everything is matter" is taken as a metaphysical reality by most, and it's presumed that what science is discoverng is not just a phenomenal description but a true basic ontology. Some recognize and understand the difference, but in common parlance the distinction isn't made.
No, it can produce actual tangible, useful results and advancements, such as all the electronics and such that you're using to share your opinions. That's a lot more than "consensus opinion".
Again, not interested in pointless philosophical debates about "what is truth" "what is a fact" etc.
Techno wizardry is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, but when it comes to theoretical understanding it boils down to current consensus and nothing more. And the technical improvements are fully explicable independent of the semantics of the theories. Science gives us an understanding of mechanical relationships or behavior, but it can't get down to ontological reality.
Then why are you bothering to push back at me? If you're not interested in discussing factual things and truth, why the pushback when I have made it clear it is an embedded metaphysical understanding in the common parlance of science that I am challenging? I have no issues with the methodology, I simply have interest to strip it of unjustified philosophical premises.
Wrong. For example, our theoretical understanding of evolutionary relationships between different taxonomic groups is the primary way we figure out genetic functions, which has led to numerous advancements.
Based on my experiences as a scientist, I'm betting that most scientists don't care one bit about your mission. That you've decided to try and make your case at a Christian message board, rather than making it in an actual scientific setting, effectively guarantees scientists won't ever hear about it in the first place.
Yes, describing behaviorsmore accurately leads to better underststandings of behaviors. But that doesn't address the explanatory gap I am talking about.
I'm not interested in "most scientists", I asked you a specific question. You claim not to care about truth or fact, yet you seem to be trying to argue for the truth or factual nature of science and refusing to engage with the philosophical issues involved. If you don't care, why are you pushing back? It's not scientists I'm worried about, at least not to any significant degree. It is quite interesting to me the way people who have fully invested themselves in science respond to what I see as a modest proposal to clarify the language so that what science reveals is reflected in the language rather than giving a misleading appearances by avoiding philosophic discussion of the terms involved. So if you don't care one bit about what I've said, why are you trying to push back against it? Why are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Your claim was wrong. Our theoretical understandings have led, and continue to lead to all sorts of technologies and advancements.
I hope this is just a mistake on your part rather than deliberate misrepresentation. I specifically said I'm not interested in philosophical debates like "what is truth" and "what is fact".
Because you keep getting things wrong (see above).
So you're making a proposal to change how scientists communicate, but you have no intent of ever taking that proposal to scientists?
You don't seem to understand my claim, because advancing technology depends only on phenomenal understanding. The gap between behavior and ontology remains, people just seem to be impressed by improvements in technology.
Where else are we going to be able to explore such questions? Did you not say that science isn't interested in "truth"?
You provided no evidence of dependence upon an ontological assumption. Better understandings of behavior leads to improved predictions of behavior. But the gap between phenomenal description and ontology remains.
My concern is how the general public understands science, scientists are free to communicate how they wish. My concern is simply to raise awareness of the issue of justifying science in a non-circular fashion.
So why do you keep responding?
Your initial claim was that our "theoretical understandings boil down to consensus and nothing more". I showed that to be incorrect by citing an example of a theoretical understanding being validated by producing consistent, tangible, useful results.
Yeah people tend to be impressed by things that improve, or even save their lives.
Those sorts of mental exercises mostly only matter to the philosophically minded. And like I said earlier, philosophers have been going round and round about those things for thousands of years, but apparently with no resolution or progress.
Moving the goalposts (see above).
Then take your case to the general public.
At this point mostly because it's gotten kinda funny.
