Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[AV1611VET]

LOL!

LOL what?

QV please:

Yes, it seems that even astronomers cannot have an election without messing around with the process. Such is sadly now the case as the vote in Prague by the International Astronomical Union to demote Pluto from planet to dwarf planet has been exposed as a fraud.

SOURCE

 

[SelfSim]

LOL what?

QV please:

Yes, it seems that even astronomers cannot have an election without messing around with the process. Such is sadly now the case as the vote in Prague by the International Astronomical Union to demote Pluto from planet to dwarf planet has been exposed as a fraud.

SOURCE

LOL!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Neutrals aren't lousy. They simply don't show up in existence.

I might have wasted a Futurama reference...

Despite the fact that I take a more Stephen J. Gould approach to "science," I prefer to think of science as a human endeavor, one that doesn't involved God because it can't really wrap its experimental gloves around God. So..................we leave Him directly out of the analysis.

See? It's still Plain and Simple.

Like I said -- science is secular, you could have just said: "Yes".

It's not merely a "them" problem since the question of Jesus' possible Lordship of the Universe is an ever present possibility, looming constantly in the background of our daily lives (i.e. whether we like it or not).

It was good that I wasn't drinking when I read this, or I'd need to replace my keyboard. I don't know if it was "lordship of the Universe" or putting Jesus in the role that caught me more off guard. I cant help you with the unwanted thoughts that keep creeping in at the wrong times.

Evidence has to be interpreted, and then those interpretations are analyzed for coherence with every other set of evidence and data we have. And sometimes, Christians think the evidence produces conclusions that are simply underdetermined.

Under determined? Really? Christians? Those ones that claim to know what the "lord of the Universe" thinks? They think things are undertermined? That would make the second astonishing thing I read in this post.

Yes, a lot of us do debate with journal articles.

Not reading or citing journal articles, writing them.

And where pistols might be drawn, I take the Tom Petty avenue of choice.

I was falling w/o resistance, then I hit skip.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I might have wasted a Futurama reference...

What's Futurama?

Like I said -- science is secular, you could have just said: "Yes".

I prefer the old meaning of the word, myself.

It was good that I wasn't drinking when I read this, or I'd need to replace my keyboard. I don't know if it was "lordship of the Universe" or putting Jesus in the role that caught me more off guard. I cant help you with the unwanted thoughts that keep creeping in at the wrong times.

Yeah. Good thing you weren't drinking.

Under determined? Really? Christians? Those ones that claim to know what the "lord of the Universe" thinks? They think things are undertermined? That would make the second astonishing thing I read in this post.

Yes. Underdetermined. You see, it sort depends on how you slice and dice the meaning of "history." One person's failed sunny-side up egg is another's person's scrambled breakfast.

Not reading or citing journal articles, writing them.

These days, there's a lot that goes into "writing them," and sometimes there's a lot that doesn't go into get them published. But that's politics.

I was falling w/o resistance, then I hit skip.

I'll take it then that you prefer to keep the chambers loaded.

And just for the record, I do know what Futurama is. I just prefer Veggie Tales.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.. or a side benefit produced by thinking scientifically.

Oh, I don't know. The more I think about the universe in scientific terms, the more I wonder about it. But that's me................

The benefit there is clarity which ultimately benefits the purpose behind distilling and enhancing science's objective reality model.

I think "objective reality" is a bit oversold. I settle for "Reality," removing some of the assumptions about objectivity that are often built into scientific notions about it all.

Yep .. that happens.

'Perfect' is idealistic. Science is about what works.

Science is the worst in achieving 'perfectionism' .. (except for all the other ways of pursuing it).

I'm so glad we're on the same page about this...... at least we know where the limits of science lie.

 

[BCP1928]

LOL what?

QV please:

Yes, it seems that even astronomers cannot have an election without messing around with the process. Such is sadly now the case as the vote in Prague by the International Astronomical Union to demote Pluto from planet to dwarf planet has been exposed as a fraud.

SOURCE

So what? It has no effect on my life (or on Pluto.) Why don't you form your own Astronomical Union to change it back again?

 

[SelfSim]

I think "objective reality" is a bit oversold. I settle for "Reality," removing some of the assumptions about objectivity that are often built into scientific notions about it all.

I use the adjective, 'objective' there, to distinguish for the reader, science's reality from belief based reality.
(I sometimes refer to the scientific method as 'the objective method', or just 'objective testing').

I don't particularly care for the phrase 'physical reality', as it typically implies the belief of the existence of a truly mind independent reality, (the latter of which is untestable .. (at least thus far in my ongoing inquiry, that is).

I'm so glad we're on the same page about this...... at least we know where the limits of science lie.

Everything in science is contextual and provisional .. science doesn't depend on absolutes, (or other assumed truths/assumptions).
.. (But I might, from time to time).

 

[River Jordan]

For some, it does necessitate that very thing. Just look at the whole Covid extravaganza has taken place these past 4 years.

What specifically in Christianity requires them to call scientists frauds and liars?

However, what I'm attempting to delineate here is that there is a specific difference between justification and necessity that we need to recognize as a part of the dynamics of the ongoing "science vs. Bible" fiasco we all have to put up with.

That's exactly my point. Some of them may believe scientists are liars and frauds and may feel justified in saying so, but that's very different than saying Christianity requires it.

That depends upon the specific sliver of nuance of the latest of "science's" progressive finds. If we're not careful, we'll find ourselves suddenly thrust into a dozen examples of what I'm talking about. Ideology, Hermeneutics, Praxis, and varied life experiences both good and bad, of whatever grade, will play a part in any one person's perceptions about the nature of the science vs. bible conflict.

Sometimes, from a particular angle, they may appear to be justified. It just won't be via your or my sense of "justification."

Ok.

Quite on the contrary, River. The outcomes of Social psychology don't fall into neatly precise categories by which we can necessarily and always cite the inherent qualities of justification a person may bring to bear upon us. Of course, many of us in the mainstream sciences don't like this, but it is what it is.

That doesn't make sense as a reply to what I posted. I pointed out that their praxis (lived outcomes) can't justify them accusing scientists of being frauds and liars, since they typically have no actual life experience with how scientists do their work. I don't know what outcomes of social psychology have to do with that basic fact. So when you say "quite the contrary" are you arguing that they really do have life experiences with how science is done?

I'm not saying it's impossible, but as someone who is educated in Philosophy and Social Studies Education, I do have some understanding about human psychological motivation and social praxis. People tend not to listen until they feel they want to listen. It's just the way it is.

Certainly.

And sometimes, scientists do lie or get unjustifiably fixated emotionally on their own points of view. It's not like it can never happen to a working scientist, and this is even the case for those working in biology or paleontology and so on and so forth. You and I are not exempt.

That's true of any group of people, but it doesn't justify labeling all of them frauds and liars.

Regardless, though, I understand your frustration with AV. I've tussled with him a little in the past myself, but at the end of the day, I'm always going to lean toward attempting mutual understanding if that is the most I can attempt to ask for .

I'm not frustrated with AV specifically. Just trying to counter the idea that if you want to be a Christian you have to turn your back on science and all that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What's Futurama?

I prefer the old meaning of the word, myself.

Ahh, yes, long term change of a system. A cromulent physics word.

Yeah. Good thing you weren't drinking.

Yes. Underdetermined. You see, it sort depends on how you slice and dice the meaning of "history." One person's failed sunny-side up egg is another's person's scrambled breakfast.

We weren't talking about history.

These days, there's a lot that goes into "writing them,"

You have to do the work before you can write them. That is the point. It's not some cheap argument or debate.

and sometimes there's a lot that doesn't go into get them published. But that's politics.

No, not politics, science. I don't know what "politics" you think is going on.

I'll take it then that you prefer to keep the chambers loaded.

And just for the record, I do know what Futurama is. I just prefer Veggie Tales.

An evangelical cartoon for kids. I'll pass.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I use the adjective, 'objective' there, to distinguish for the reader, science's reality from belief based reality.
(I sometimes refer to the scientific method as 'the objective method', or just 'objective testing').

I don't particularly care for the phrase 'physical reality', as it typically implies the belief of the existence of a truly mind independent reality, (the latter of which is untestable .. (at least thus far in my ongoing inquiry, that is).

Everything in science is contextual and provisional .. science doesn't depend on absolutes, (or other assumed truths/assumptions).
.. (But I might, from time to time).

I think you and I may different on what we think constitutes viable definitions of reality, objectivity, subjectivity, and perception. And this is why I prefer a more general form of Reality, particularly one that takes the physical for measure in one hand, and the plausibly spiritual in the other.

But I do agree with you, though, that science is contextual and provisional. It's always interesting to encounter those who think otherwise.

 

[SelfSim]

I think you and I may different on what we think constitutes viable definitions of reality, objectivity, subjectivity, and perception. And this is why I prefer a more general form of Reality, particularly one that takes the physical for measure in one hand, and the plausibly spiritual in the other.

I really, really, really don't want to go into the depths of a consistent, minimalist philosophy of science, (yet again), but as an example, the word 'reality' clearly has a human understandable meaning, yes(?). I am led to a conclusion, by way of a testable hypothesis that returns abundant consistent results. That conclusion is that the word 'reality' can be assigned a meaning via only two known distinct ways, either: via the scientific method or, by way of beliefs. Both methods produce different meanings of that word.
Neither is 'right' or 'wrong' .. just different.
(There's no beliefs inside that hypothesis .. it, itself ,is testable, so the above is a conclusion inferred from the results of testing that hypothesis .. and nothing more than that).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What specifically in Christianity requires them to call scientists frauds and liars?

Their adherence to 'fundamental' formulations of religious ideals and concepts prevent them. And those fundamental ideas are at the core of more surface issues, like the question of the world and human origins. For them, The Bible in all of its literary literalness comes first and foremost in their emotional and ideological appraisal of reality. And this is why it's so difficult for folks like you or me to suggest to them otherwise.

That's exactly my point. Some of them may believe scientists are liars and frauds and may feel justified in saying so, but that's very different than saying Christianity requires it.

Some scientists have been liars, frauds or perpetrators of scandals, like any other human beings in any other occupation of life (like plumbers, pastors or apologists)

That doesn't make sense as a reply to what I posted. I pointed out that their praxis (lived outcomes) can't justify them accusing scientists of being frauds and liars, since they typically have no actual life experience with how scientists do their work. I don't know what outcomes of social psychology have to do with that basic fact. So when you say "quite the contrary" are you arguing that they really do have life experiences with how science is done?

Maybe I misunderstood your previous point? I know very well that their 'bad' praxis doesn't truly justify their accusation, at least not much of the time. But that's just the trick: society provides the levers of distrust that certain bad actors, wherever they be, whether in universities or churches, or governmental institutions, who discolor the views of science. Social psychology has a lot to explain about the interface between society on the outside and a person's conceptual and perceptual conditioning. We can identify this link in all sorts of ways, some of which are obviously pejorative or critical in nature.

So, no, I'm not saying that all fundamentalist Christians have life experience (or education) regarding how science is done. What I'm saying is that their respective acculturation overrides and prevents them from being willing to listen to or, most importantly, trust scientists at large, whether those scientists are Christian or not. I know this is a big 'hum-bug,' but it is what it is. And because it is what it is, it's one reason why biology teachers don't always find that it's easy to teach about Evolution in the public classroom. I think you know this.

That's true of any group of people, but it doesn't justify labeling all of them frauds and liars.

Right. But our knowing this doesn't mean it's a point we'll be able to get across to them due to .... all of what I've said above.

I'm not frustrated with AV specifically. Just trying to counter the idea that if you want to be a Christian you have to turn your back on science and all that.

Fortunately, not all of us who are Christian see science and the Bible as diametrically opposed ideologically. But some do, and we won't be able to disabuse many of them of that perceptual and interpretive disposition.

And as I said before, on some level, I think Basil Mitchell's explanation of "The Layman's Predicament" goes some way in offering both an explanation and a lower level justification for not expecting everyone across the board to accept science or anything and everything that the academic/scholarly world has thrown out upon the table.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ahh, yes, long term change of a system. A cromulent physics word.

We weren't talking about history.

Science too.

You have to do the work before you can write them. That is the point. It's not some cheap argument or debate.

Yes, I fully realize that. There's a lot of work that goes into them. And I appreciate all those that I've ever read.

No, not politics, science. I don't know what "politics" you think is going on.

It's all becomes a mixed bad somewhere along the way. Sometimes more so. Sometimes less.

An evangelical cartoon for kids. I'll pass.

I was kidding, Hans. I hate Veggie Tales.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I really, really, really don't want to go into the depths of a consistent, minimalist philosophy of science, (yet again), but as an example, the word 'reality' clearly has a human understandable meaning, yes(?). I am led to a conclusion, by way of a testable hypothesis that returns abundant consistent results. That conclusion is that the word 'reality' can be assigned a meaning via only two known distinct ways, either: via the scientific method or, by way of beliefs. Both methods produce different meanings of that word.
Neither is 'right' or 'wrong' .. just different.
(There's no beliefs inside that hypothesis .. it, itself ,is testable, so the above is a conclusion inferred from the results of testing that hypothesis .. and nothing more than that).

Yeah, I essentially agree with that, but I think there are semantic limits to even the most seemingly objective, ironclad claims. Sometimes those limits I'm referring to are in the semantic vein of Mary Shelley or Oppenheimer, among others...................... and I have no problem saying it.

Science doesn't rule.

 

[SelfSim]

Yeah, I essentially agree with that, but I think there are semantic limits to even the most seemingly objective, ironclad claims.

'Semantic limits'? Everything we're doing here and throughout all of human history, is on the basis of semantics .. including religious beliefs (and faith therein).
We all use our human minds for communcating our meaning when I last looked at the evidence for that. There's no escaping the working conclusion there.

To dwell on those limits, requires a human mind (and nothing independent from one .. even when one just believes there is a something independent from one). Dwelling on those limits, hasn't provided further insights (based on evidence), nor is it likely to in the immediate future .. like it or not. We're all in this boat together.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'Semantic limits'? Everything we're doing here and throughout all of human history, is on the basis of semantics .. including religious beliefs (and faith therein).
We all use our human minds for communcating our meaning when I last looked at the evidence for that. There's no escaping the working conclusion there.

To dwell on those limits, requires a human mind (and nothing independent from one .. even when one just believes there is a something independent from one). Dwelling on those limits, hasn't provided further insights (based on evidence), nor is it likely to in the immediate future .. like it or not. We're all in this boat together.

I could be wrong in that perhaps I misspoke above, but I'm pretty sure that my previous post said nothing about "dwelling on limits." You seem to have supplied that as an addition to what I actually said.

On the other hand, I am an anti-transhumanist, so maybe I do have some inbuilt prejudice against just any ol' offering of scientific or technological progress. It should be obvious that my prejudice isn't held in the same way that AV holds his, mind you, but I'm still anti in some regards to certain assumptions and uses of science, nevertheless.

And why? ---- because I'm a Christian and I realize we're all in this boat together and science doesn't and shouldn't have the final word on whole of Reality.

 

[SelfSim]

And why? ---- because I'm a Christian and I realize we're all in this boat together and science doesn't and shouldn't have the final word on whole of Reality.

To which I would (likely) always ask: 'And what do you mean by: Reality, there?'
Your response would, more than likely, only produce evidence of that meaning having been generated by a human mind .. with no evidence being produced in favour of some 'thing' existing independently from human mind(s).

Which would then raise the question of: 'What does the adjective 'whole' contribute in that phrase?

The likely conclusion drawn from the answer, would probably be: 'That it serves no purpose other than to introduce untestable beliefs on top of any testable meaning of Reality'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To which I would (likely) always ask: 'And what do you mean by: Reality, there?'
Your response would, more than likely, only produce evidence of that meaning having been generated by a human mind .. with no evidence being produced in favour of some 'thing' existing independently from human mind(s).

I would tend to moderately contest your assumption there, SelfSim.

Which would then raise the question of: 'What does the adjective 'whole' contribute in that phrase?

The likely conclusion drawn from the answer, would probably be: 'That it serves no purpose other than to introduce untestable beliefs on top of any testable meaning of Reality'.

That's a patently false assumption to impute to what it is you 'surmise' I think. You can refrain from Bulverism. It's not very useful anyway.

 

[SelfSim]

That's a patently false assumption to impute to what it is you 'surmise' I think. You can refrain from Bulverism. It's not very useful anyway.

'Twas caveated by terms of uncertaintly such as 'likely', 'more than likely', etc. Those estimates, I can also eassure, are themselves, based on evidence drawn from myriads of similar conversations I've had following those same questions.

I was deliberately trying to avoid making it personal .. because that was definitely not my intention.
'Twas my attempt to fast track the process, fo rthe sake of expediency and in recongition that we are way off track with the OP of this thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'Twas caveated by terms of uncertaintly such as 'likely', 'more than likely', etc. Those estimates, I can also eassure, are themselves, based on evidence drawn from myriads of similar conversations I've had following those same questions.

I think I might be a bit of an outlier, so in my case, you may want to raise your assumptive threshold.

I was deliberately trying to avoid making it personal .. because that was definitely not my intention.
'Twas my attempt to fast track the process, fo rthe sake of expediency and in recongition that we are way off track with the OP of this thread.

Right. And I'm attempting to stall an unnecessary pseudo-debate. I do hate debates, especially if I sense another person is not yet familiar with "what I'm about." Not that you need to know what "I'm about."