Direct Driver
Well-Known Member
- Jan 19, 2021
- 1,141
- 449
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
Depends on the point one is trying to make with the analogy.But the processes must still be similar in some important way. A good analogy, however hyperbolic, should illuminate that similarity.
My conclusion is not that scientists are wrong. Rather, that they don't KNOW. Funny thing is that most of the scientists will admit they don't "know". It's the True Believers that seem to think the scientists have proven things that even the scientists are loathe to say they "know".I am unfortunately very familiar with the concept of people who deny evolution. It’s a bad analogy because the parallel you’re trying to draw requires one to accept your conclusion (that the scientists are wrong) as a premise of the comparison before it can make any sense. You might as well just say “I scoff at scientific consensus.”
The word “know” is loaded here. Technically, I don’t even know that you exist. But we don’t speak in technical terms in our daily lives. For practical purposes, I do know you exist. In the same sense, scientists do know evolution accounts for biodiversity.My conclusion is not that scientists are wrong. Rather, that they don't KNOW. Funny thing is that most of the scientists will admit they don't "know". It's the True Believers that seem to think the scientists have proven things that even the scientists are loathe to say they "know".
'Knowing' is a difficult concept. Knowing in science, is choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has objective consequences. So 'knowledge' boils down to 'track record', and nothing else. (And certainly not 'justified true belief', as True Believers might assume is the case).The word “know” is loaded here. Technically, I don’t even know that you exist. But we don’t speak in technical terms in our daily lives. For practical purposes, I do know you exist. In the same sense, scientists do know evolution accounts for biodiversity.
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying scientists generally only say they know things if they can demonstrate it? Because I agree with that. I don’t know what you mean by “True Believers” or “not having to prove it.”'Knowing' is a difficult concept. Knowing in science, is choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has objective consequences. So 'knowledge' boils down to 'track record', and nothing else. (And certainly not 'justified true belief', as True Believers might assume is the case).
In that sense, a scientific thinker can 'know' the theory of Evolution accounts for biodiversity, without having to prove it.
Yes (I'm agreeing with you) .. and adding more to that. Scientists go on to make choices on the basis of predictions. That act is the objective demonstration of their knowledge.Are you saying scientists generally only say they know things if they can demonstrate it? Because I agree with that.
I was referencing @Direct Driver's term 'True Believers' there .. I'm betting the meaning he/she has for that term has the, (completely useless, IMO), philosophical notion of knowledge being a 'justified true belief' underpinning it .. We'll see I s'ppose(?)gaara4158 said:I don’t know what you mean by “True Believers” or “not having to prove it.”
Yep ..gaara4158 said:To put it more simply, scientists conclude that evolution is a robust explanation for biodiversity due to the preponderance of evidence in its favor.
It would be continuous change that would be quite analogous to biological evolution.If someone came up with a way to have smart cars send feedback to the factory and the factory to use that feedback to change the design of the car to improve it would that be considered "evolution"?
You and I are on the same page about the word "know". It's why I emphasized it. However, regarding what they know about biodiversity...Wait. You got me monologuing!The word “know” is loaded here. Technically, I don’t even know that you exist. But we don’t speak in technical terms in our daily lives. For practical purposes, I do know you exist. In the same sense, scientists do know evolution accounts for biodiversity.
Yes. By "True Believers", I mean those not directly involved in the research, but those that have read articles designed for the public and maybe some scientific journals and simply form an opinion based on that and then think they "KNOW" they are right.I was referencing @Direct Driver's term 'True Believers' there .. I'm betting the meaning he/she has for that term has the, (completely useless, IMO), philosophical notion of knowledge being a 'justified true belief' underpinning it .. We'll see I s'ppose(?)
That's a distinctly minority position, especially in this forum. We don't know we are right, we "know" that the theory of evolution is more plausible and better evidenced than creationism and so we accept it provisionally (as all scientific theories are accepted.) To put it another way, evolution might be wrong but creationism is certainly wrong, off the table as a scientific proposition these two hundred years or more.Yes. By "True Believers", I mean those not directly involved in the research, but those that have read articles designed for the public and maybe some scientific journals and simply form an opinion based on that and then think they "KNOW" they are right.
Regarding the first sentence, they are not mutually exclusive.We don't know we are right, we "know" that the theory of evolution is more plausible and better evidenced than creationism and so we accept it provisionally (as all scientific theories are accepted.) To put it another way, evolution might be wrong but creationism is certainly wrong, off the table as a scientific proposition these two hundred years or more.
No, creationism false. The Earth is not 6000 years old and was not entirely covered with water by a catastrophic flood 4000 years ago.Regarding the first sentence, they are not mutually exclusive.
Regarding the second, prove it.Creationism is not science. But that doesn't mean it's false. It simply means it is not even in science's swimlane to discuss.
So now you've given up on creationism and have moved on to ID--but that's a pretty lame argument for it. The presence of design is unfalsifiable. I couldn't rule out design even if I had a video of natural processes causing the stacking.When you see those rock stacks at river beaches and on trails, they are evidence of a person stacking them. But if you don't believe that person exists, you'll come up with all sorts of "scientific" explanation for how they happened. But saying "someone stacked them is certainly wrong" is not the intellectual high ground. It falls under "you don't know what you don't know" hubris.
I'm a creationist, but I'm not a YEC. And because I have a relationship with the Creator, it is very easy for me to believe He did it. That's about the only way a person is going to believe it. It's not about science at all. Science is about how. Religion is about why. "Why" is the higher pursuit.No, creationism false. The Earth is not 6000 years old and was not entirely covered with water by a catastrophic flood 4000 years ago.
So now you've given up on creationism and have moved on to ID--but that's a pretty lame argument for it. The presence of design is unfalsifiable. I couldn't rule out design even if I had a video of natural processes causing the stacking.
If you're not a YEC then why are you opposed to evolution?I'm a creationist, but I'm not a YEC.
True, but the subject of this forum is not about the existence of God--it's about the "how" not the "why."And because I have a relationship with the Creator, it is very easy for me to believe He did it. That's about the only way a person is going to believe it. It's not about science at all. Science is about how. Religion is about why. "Why" is the higher pursuit.
Yes. By "True Believers", I mean those not directly involved in the research, but those that have read articles designed for the public and maybe some scientific journals and simply form an opinion based on that and then think they "KNOW" they are right.
They are easy to spot in this sort of discussion. One side argues that they are right and we know while the other argues that they disagree, but we really don't "know". When a discussion heads in that direction it's really a waste of time other than for entertainment.
Otherwise we'd probably think it evolved, literally, because of it's complexity and function of its parts. It reeks of creation - intelligent design. Just like life does.
If it’s an empirical claim that can’t be empirically investigated it’s hardly worth thinking about.Regarding the second, prove it.Creationism is not science. But that doesn't mean it's false. It simply means it is not even in science's swimlane to discuss.
I'm not.If you're not a YEC then why are you opposed to evolution?
Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the field. A person who is "opposed to evolution" would deny those observations as some kind of atheist conspiracy to deny the Bible.I'm not.
But the problem is, how do you define "opposed to evolution"? I firmly believe evolution exists. I just don't think it leads to speciation. I think evolution is what happened to species after they were created.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?