Could cars reproduce?

[Direct Driver]

But the processes must still be similar in some important way. A good analogy, however hyperbolic, should illuminate that similarity.

Depends on the point one is trying to make with the analogy.

 

[Direct Driver]

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.”

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".

 

[Sophrosyne]

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"?

 

[gaara4158]

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".

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.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

'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.

 

[gaara4158]

'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.

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.”

To put it more simply, scientists conclude that evolution is a robust explanation for biodiversity due to the preponderance of evidence in its favor.

 

[SelfSim]

Are you saying scientists generally only say they know things if they can demonstrate it? Because I agree with that.

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.

I don’t know what you mean by “True Believers” or “not having to prove it.”

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(?)

Also, science doesn't prove things as being correct .. (math and philosophical logic does however). Science objectively tests.

To put it more simply, scientists conclude that evolution is a robust explanation for biodiversity due to the preponderance of evidence in its favor.

Yep ..
Vaccines (for eg) work for their specified and constrained predicted purpose, because test results are consistent with that purpose/prediction (and scientists 'know' that on the basis of those results).

 

[doubtingmerle]

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"?

It would be continuous change that would be quite analogous to biological evolution.
It would not be biological evolution.

 

[Direct Driver]

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.

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!

I'm done talking evolution. I'm only talking argument styles at this point!

 

[Direct Driver]

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(?)

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

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.

 

[Direct Driver]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

No, creationism false. The Earth is not 6000 years old and was not entirely covered with water by a catastrophic flood 4000 years ago.

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.

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.

 

[Direct Driver]

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.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm a creationist, but I'm not a YEC.

If you're not a YEC then why are you opposed to evolution?

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.

True, but the subject of this forum is not about the existence of God--it's about the "how" not the "why."

 

[Astrid]

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.

Of course, one side holds all the a tual cards. ( data)

Entertaining sometimes to observe the nutty falsehoods
put forth by creationists, who've not fact one among
the lot of them. Paluxy mantracks! Polystrate whales!
Weird stuff!

And to see people deny that they are claiming personal
infallibility while claiming their Bible- reading cannot be
wrong.
But it's more a study in human nature, cultural anthropology
if you will, than entertainment per se.

 

[pitabread]

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.

We don't identify design based on complexity and function. We identify it based on pattern recognition and pre-existing knowledge.

 

[gaara4158]

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.

If it’s an empirical claim that can’t be empirically investigated it’s hardly worth thinking about.

 

[Direct Driver]

If you're not a YEC then why are you opposed to evolution?

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

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.