Evolution true or false?

[AirPo]

Because they invented the theory. If there is a scientific explanation for evolution theory, then it cannot be itself, because then it would tautological. Similarly the only emulation of the universe is itself, we will always be the anomaly in any science, because there is no explanation of how we came to know what we know.

I think that observation and experience are valid explanations for things that we know.

 

[Nathan David]

Because they invented the theory. If there is a scientific explanation for evolution theory, then it cannot be itself, because then it would tautological.

That doesn't make sense. Evolution theory is the scientific explanation for the fact of evolution. Evolution would be happening whether there were someone around to try to understand and explain it or not.

Similarly the only emulation of the universe is itself, we will always be the anomaly in any science, because there is no explanation of how we came to know what we know.

Sure there is. It involves our brains and our senses.

 

[kingreaper]

Because they invented the theory. If there is a scientific explanation for evolution theory, then it cannot be itself, because then it would tautological. Similarly the only emulation of the universe is itself, we will always be the anomaly in any science, because there is no explanation of how we came to know what we know.

The fact we didn't evolve knowledge of evolution is irrelevent


PS. if nothing can ever understand itself, how come its posssible to load a computer with a complete schematic of that computer?

 

[kedaman]

I think that observation and experience are valid explanations for things that we know.

You cannot explain the perception with the percepted.

That doesn't make sense. Evolution theory is the scientific explanation for the fact of evolution. Evolution would be happening whether there were someone around to try to understand and explain it or not.

There is no point in this reasoning, because if evolution doesn't explain how we understand it, then evolution doesn't involve us. And no, explaining evolution of our brains and our senses is still not enough to explain how just that came to be, without resolving to circular reasoning.

 

[kedaman]

The fact we didn't evolve knowledge of evolution is irrelevent

henceforth we are the anomaly.

PS. if nothing can ever understand itself, how come its posssible to load a computer with a complete schematic of that computer?

It is not possible, because the schematic doesn't include how itself is loaded into the computer, unless the computer is the schematic.

 

[AirPo]

[/font]
You cannot explain the perception with the percepted.
[/font]

Sure you can.

There is no point in this reasoning, because if evolution doesn't explain how we understand it, then evolution doesn't involve us. And no, explaining evolution of our brains and our senses is still not enough to explain how just that came to be, without resolving to circular reasoning.

Wrong.

 

[AirPo]

It is not possible, because the schematic doesn't include how itself is loaded into the computer, unless the computer is the schematic.

Sure it does. There's floppy drive, CD drives, serial ports, etc.

 

[kedaman]

Seems like I can't get my point trough here. Study Gödel's incompleteness theorem, then judge for yourself.

 

[Nathan David]

You cannot explain the perception with the percepted.

Why not?

There is no point in this reasoning, because if evolution doesn't explain how we understand it, then evolution doesn't involve us.

Evolution explains why we have the capability to understand evolution.

 

[Ondoher]

You cannot explain the perception with the percepted.
There is no point in this reasoning, because if evolution doesn't explain how we understand it, then evolution doesn't involve us. And no, explaining evolution of our brains and our senses is still not enough to explain how just that came to be, without resolving to circular reasoning.

Evolution does explain the origin and development of human cognitive functions. I fail to see a problem here.

I think we both agree that humans have the ability to observe and understand our world. Evolution is the best explanation we have to explain the diversity of species, including humans.

 

[kedaman]

Let's presume Evolution is true, then our theory correctly describes itself in us, and must thus be tautological, henceforth the explanation is not scientific. It doesn't get more obvious than this: We cannot include ourselves without circular reasoning.

 

[TheUndeadFish]

Let's presume Evolution is true, then our theory correctly describes itself in us, and must thus be tautological, henceforth the explanation is not scientific. It doesn't get more obvious than this: We cannot include ourselves without circular reasoning.

Seems like you're taking Evolutionary Theory way outside its boundries. Evolution does not describe:
how we learn
how we develop knowledge
how we pass that knowledge on to others
how we conduct science
the history of how evolutionary theory was developed

Evolution deals with our thought processes in very general terms and does not come close to describing itself within us. So I don't really see a problem here.

 

[kedaman]

which is my point exactly..

 

[Split Rock]

Let's presume Evolution is true, then our theory correctly describes itself in us, and must thus be tautological, henceforth the explanation is not scientific. It doesn't get more obvious than this: We cannot include ourselves without circular reasoning.

Are you saying we cannot figure out the origin of our own species, because if we did that would be circular reasoning???

Are you Colossians' twin brother??