Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[2PhiloVoid]

.. and I suggest you reconsider your fallacious appeal to authority of philosophy departments' perspectives, in order to support your own beliefs in a matter which challenges the role of philsophical beliefs masquerading under the alternate set of scientifically meaningless words: 'Methodological Naturalism'.

I'm going to toss a few cents in here and say that I fully understand that there is an ongoing debate over the accuracy and efficacy of relying upon Methodological Naturalism as a defining context for scientific work, but you might be articulating a position which overstates the extent that this debate is commandeered by "philosophers" over and against working scientists.

Keep in mind that a number of philosophers of science have also been working scientists.

 

[River Jordan]

I'm going to toss a few cents in here and say that I fully understand that there is an ongoing debate over the accuracy and efficacy of relying upon Methodological Naturalism as a defining context for scientific work, but you might be articulating a position which overstates the extent that this debate is commandeered by "philosophers" over and against working scientists.

Keep in mind that a number of philosophers of science have also been working scientists.

I've never once had any of these philosophical topics come up in my work. I've never heard of it coming up in any of my colleagues' work either.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes. This is a reasonable description of the social dynamics involved in both the understanding and acceptance of ToE by a number of Christians.

Ah, ok. I see.

And I often struggle to not think less of people who, for no other reason that pure disinterest, aren't open to a broader view of various academic subjects. .... but even so, I do get the practicality of focusing on one's work for the sake employment and for the reason that scientists usually specialize in one or two fields so they can offer knowledge and skills that are marketable.

I wasn't speaking of an academic subject, I was speaking of a religion. I have no use for what Christianity offers, not its moral system or its promises of the beyond. I have no use for its "social benefits" or spirituality, nor did I have use of them when I was a participant. (These seem rather harsh, but the more you guys trigger me to think about it, the less useful it seems and the more I come to active dislike.)

Obviously, I lack the qualities of determination and focus, and sheer acumen, that you have...................................

If I hadn't ignored the siren call of literary analysis, I would have never gotten anywhere in science.

No, it was a simpler reason than that: I only posted that specific and truncated video because it demonstrates that Dawkins recognizes how social issues can be embedded within the larger frame of what may be touted as "objective science."

I didn't do it for any reason pertaining to whatever-------as some of you like to label it--------politicism he might advocate for presently.

OK, but see the next response.

You don't have to know him, but Herbert Spencer was a secular polymath who, in following Darwin, coined the term, "Survival of the Fittest." He's also known for contributing to the ideas of 'Social Darwinism.' ........ it's just a part of the history of the interpretation of the ToE, Hans.

Abusive use of "science" is irrelevant to the actual science. "Interpretation of ToE" is some category of social behavior.

So am I. Oh, so very much so, am I.

yes.

You don't have to know him. It's simply an allusion to a villian from Spider-Man lore.

I haven't studied that literature.

That's ok. Just know that the academic, theological study of the topic of Eschatology is wide and diverse.

Or that one.

Peanuts? What a gracious analogy, Hans. Good grief!

It's hard to make a "gracious" analogy that represents how disinterested I am in theology. It just doesn't matter to me at all and it never did. I tried to come up with some others just now, but they were all "worse".

Actually, no. Mary Shelley was deploring the possibility of scientific overreaching..................................and she was right to deplore it, and she had good reason to.

When has science ever gone too far? You worry too much...

 

[SelfSim]

I'm going to toss a few cents in here and say that I fully understand that there is an ongoing debate over the accuracy and efficacy of relying upon Methodological Naturalism as a defining context for scientific work, but you might be articulating a position which overstates the extent that this debate is commandeered by "philosophers" over and against working scientists.

Keep in mind that a number of philosophers of science have also been working scientists.

.. and you might notice that's why I'm not relying on the philosophical beliefs people might hold when I'm defending science's independence from from those very philsophical intrusions (posted in #171).

Science has a history of grabbing anything that might be useful for its sense-making and goal of extending utility value. It occaisionally does this by turning philsophical notions into testable propositions, whilst ignoring the believed-in truth parts, typically asserted in initial philosophical imperative-style statements.

Its important to recognise that this independence is the key distinguishing feature and benefit brought to the table by scientific thinking.
It's aloof independence and non-reliance on claims merely asserting truths, is central to that benefit.
Science tests whatever is testable and ignores beliefs.

 

[SelfSim]

I've never once had any of these philosophical topics come up in my work. I've never heard of it coming up in any of my colleagues' work either.

Well, welcome to CFs.
I don't care about what you, or your colleagues do for a living ... because its irrelevant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nor was I put under any religious or faith-based pressure to consider speciation as being of divine origin. If I recollect rightly, I was already making inroads to being the 'general evolutionist' I am still today by about age................oh, what was it?.................age 6 or 7? Yeah.

Needless to say, those Planet of the Apes movies, 1970s Star Trek re-runs, educational Dinosaur books, Marvel comic books, love for Star Wars, and the fact that my dad had worked for NASA as a computer operations supervisor in the 1960s, set me up for taking whatever Carl Sagan had to say quite seriously when my dad introduced him to me and we watched the newly minted Cosmos series together. At that point, the icing on the cake was my discovery of some of Arthur C. Clarke's fiction. ... and I guess Biology class in public school.

I think I saw Cosmos before Star Wars.

In fact, other than coming across a few Bible Stories books at the local dentist office as a child, I didn't get plied with any formal teaching about Creationism until I stepped into a Bible College for a year at age 19. No, I'd say that except for that 2 or 3 year hiccup, I've pretty much been an evolutionist most of my life.

We had some sort of illustrated bible stories volume, but it wasn't one I ever wanted to read. Too many other books that were more interesting. I was about 39 when I first stepped in to a bible college, but that was for only one day, and it was actually a large Catholic university, but somehow disconcerting at the same time.

I agree. But unfortunately, both Tradition and Method get in the way of how we understand either the ToE or the Bible, or in how we think either applies in everyday life.

I don't think either really applies to any significant extent in my everyday life. I only think about ToE when I am contemplating the artificial selection of the lawn weed to my frequent decapitation of those that get taller than 3 inches.

But... I think the primary difference between us and our approaches to these things is that you care about your religion and I never did. The contradictions in the texts and the conflicts between doctrine and the outside natural reality didn't bother me because I didn't pay attention to them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Popular opinion isn't my 'god'. Deduce whatever you wish. Cheers!

This is why your rep is so low here with all of your post-and-run threads and then not engaging in the actual claims you post. (in this case posting a video to a site that is not generally accessable to people without accounts on it)

1 Corinthians 4:1-5 NKJV
"Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.

For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God."

bq;dr

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is why your rep is so low here with all of your post-and-run threads and then not engaging in the actual claims you post. (in this case posting a video to a site that is not generally accessable to people without accounts on it)

Just as a thing: if you refresh the page, you can watch the video. Just putting that info out there.

 

[BCP1928]

Just as a thing: if you refresh the page, you can watch the video. Just putting that info out there.

Was it worth it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Was it worth it?

It is not. It is literally just the claim that Darwin's family paid Wallace to go around the world then took his research and published it under Darwin's name. No sources, nothing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've never once had any of these philosophical topics come up in my work. I've never heard of it coming up in any of my colleagues' work either.

Yes, I'm sure topics like these typically don't come up these days for working scientists like yourself. Some amount of it isn't of practical use within either universities or the scientific organizations/companies who hire scientifically proficient individuals.

Still, if we look at history, I think we can sometimes see examples where discussion or debate over topics in Philosophy of Science might have had some application and eventually led to improvements in method and theory.

 

[Shemjaza]

The challenge remains...

Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

I'm curious what the purpose of this thread is?

And I'm curious what you think the reasonable reaction to the question it appears to pose is? And why?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.. and you might notice that's why I'm not relying on the philosophical beliefs people might hold when I'm defending science's independence from from those very philsophical intrusions (posted in #171).

Science has a history of grabbing anything that might be useful for its sense-making and goal of extending utility value. It occaisionally does this by turning philsophical notions into testable propositions, whilst ignoring the believed-in truth parts, typically asserted in initial philosophical imperative-style statements.

Its important to recognise that this independence is the key distinguishing feature and benefit brought to the table by scientific thinking.
It's aloof independence and non-reliance on claims merely asserting truths, is central to that benefit.
Science tests whatever is testable and ignores beliefs.

I think I agree with most of what you're generally saying here, and that's why I wouldn't get into a knock-down, drag-out debate over your points.

But (small but here), some scientists seem to get carried away with their testing and theorizing and don't necessarily recognize that when they're testing some phenomena X that they may not be fully testing phenomena X as it is. So, some of the results of their tests are ..... provisional beliefs.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just as a thing: if you refresh the page, you can watch the video. Just putting that info out there.

FB blocks the screen with a log in. I don't have one, so no video for me. I'll just take the word of those here that it is full of falsehoods about Darwin.

 

[BCP1928]

I think I agree with most of what you're generally saying here, and that's why I wouldn't get into a knock-down, drag-out debate over your points.

But (small but here), some scientists seem to get carried away with their testing and theorizing and don't necessarily recognize that when they're testing some phenomena X that they may not be fully testing phenomena X as it is. So, some of the results of their tests are ..... provisional beliefs.

I think that is something of an exaggeration. My scientific education and my interaction with scientists suggests that it is most often a considered working assumption only. Granted, after college I did not become a scientist, but after a few unsatisfying years in a necktie job I turned to the machinist trade and wound up as machinist to the physics department of a research university. In building experimental apparatus for the physicists the issue you raise was often part of the discussions I had with them

 

[BCP1928]

FB blocks the screen with a log in. I don't have one, so no video for me. I'll just take the word of those here that it is full of falsehoods about Darwin.

I don't see the point of it, anyway, Some Brits think that Joseph Swan invented the light bulb and Edison stole the idea from him. I don't care who's right, because my light bulbs work anyway.

But Joseph appears to be trying to show us that Darwin is not worthy of the divine worship he thinks we must bestow upon the man in order to avoid worshiping his Bible God. So far all he has convinced us of by his pretended witness is that neither Darwin nor his Bible God is worthy of worship.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that is something of an exaggeration. My scientific education and my interaction with scientists suggests that it is most often a considered working assumption only. Granted, after college I did not become a scientist, but after a few unsatisfying years in a necktie job I turned to the machinist trade and wound up as machinist to the physics department of a research university. In building experimental apparatus for the physicists the issue you raise was often part of the discussions I had with them

Please concentrate on the place where I used the word "may."

Even though I'm not a working scientists myself and am a mere scientific generalist (or armchair philosopher/apologist), I understand your example and realize that most of the time technical and theoretical controls are put in place to assure accuracy.

Even so, where the concept of God is the focus, I think we all should know where the limits of our respective methods----in whatever scientific field----have to be recognized and that those limits preempt what can be applied. Apparently, some don't realize this, and in that evaluation, I'm going to stick with most of what I've drawn from over years with the scientists (and philosophers) who have been influential in my own thinking.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, welcome to CFs.
I don't care about what you, or your colleagues do for a living ... because its irrelevant.

So what scientists do is irrelevant to how science is done?

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, I'm sure topics like these typically don't come up these days for working scientists like yourself.

They never come up really. Interestingly though the scientific method does, usually when we're designing a study, writing a proposal, or something like that.

Some amount of it isn't of practical use within either universities or the scientific organizations/companies who hire scientifically proficient individuals.

Yep.

Still, if we look at history, I think we can sometimes see examples where discussion or debate over topics in Philosophy of Science might have had some application and eventually led to improvements in method and theory.

I don't doubt it, even though I'm not aware of any cases, except during the very early formative years of modern science.

 

[BCP1928]

Please concentrate on the place where I used the word "may."

Even though I'm not a working scientists myself and am a mere scientific generalist (or armchair philosopher/apologist), I understand your example and realize that most of the time technical and theoretical controls are put in place to assure accuracy.

I'm not talking about mere accuracy.

Even so, where the concept of God is the focus, I think we all should know where the limits of our respective methods----in whatever scientific field----have to be recognized and that those limits preempt what can be applied. Apparently, some don't realize this, and in that evaluation, I'm going to stick with most of what I've drawn from over years with the scientists (and philosophers) who have been influential in my own thinking.

I may be confused about who you think these "some" are.