|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 12:14:38 PM |
Indeed, the point of the article is that no other theory is so closely related to its author than evolution and Darwin which is inappropriate given the "evolution" of evolution since.
Ahhhhhh..... I'm a little slow sometimes. Thanks for clearing that up. I do think some fundamental theories are closely tied to their "founders" (discoverers?) though:
Darwin - evolution
BF Skinner - operant conditioning
Einstein - relativity
Newton - gravity
Ivan Pavlov - classical conditioning
Pythagoras - Pythagorean theorem
And for that matter, Euclid - Euclidean geometry (wasn't this the origin of formal theories / proofs? Or, am I getting my history screwed up?)
Anyway, I do agree Darwin & Evolution are closely tied, and often people try to deamonize the man (Darwin) in order to attack his theory (Evolution). Which is silly, his theories should be either attacked or accepted on their own merit, not the merit or caliber of the man.
I don't believe in random variables that quantum mechanics proposes.. And neither did Einstein.
It's my understanding the theory of relativity, quantum etc are all approximations anyway. Neither claims they can solve everything, hence the reason physicists are still searching for a more unifying theory? | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/7/2009 10:27:14 AM |
The theory that we should only consider those things that we have found evidence for, is called empiricism, often called British empricism, because that is where most of the concepts were developed. It was conclusively proved false in the late 19th and early 20th century.
This one made me roll on the floor laughing. Really. How was it disproved? By tests against the evidence?
... so, empirically?? | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/7/2009 12:57:26 PM | Charles Darwin was a human being. (Can be recast as "All individuals who were the one Charles Darwin was a human" -- to fit the model of it being a categorical syllogism)
All human beings are not deities.
Charles Darwin was not a deity.
The problem here is with the middle term, human being, on account of, for example, some might argue that Jesus was both. But no such issue with ol Charles Darwin, who, as far as we know, existed within the boundaries of human existence as we know it. By that I mean that he demonstrated no qualities that could not also be attributed to other great thinkers -- a sound and analytical mind, focused on particular questions.
To attribute deification to his work is the deed of others, and the purpose of this is to denigrate his discoveries (as in the case of the creationists) or, dialectically from the other side, to elevate his work far beyond the limits of scientific protocal, because science, by its nature, must always remain skeptical.
But I think that the foregoing is not a product of sound logic or analysis, but rather, rhetorical devices used to influence politics/policies in ways that favor one or the other camps' views or perspectives. How else could, for example, the idea of "intelligent design" find its way into science curricula in some high schools?
The other problem that I see is that there does remain the possibility that, through rhetoric alone, one CAN elevate an individual to status of deity. If, for example, Jesus was just another human being who, through articulated rhetoric of words, deeds and accomplishments demonstrating supra-human behavior (which by the way, cannot be empirically proven and must rely on Faith), then, theoretically, other human beings can similarly be "cast" or "elevated" to deity.
Historically, it's been done before, albeit, to varying degrees. For example, in some societies, a "high priest" could be cast as "nearer to the god (note the small g)" than the other members of that society. I reckon that in that case, the "high priest" could be described as "able to walk on water but still getting wet up to his ankles." But nevertheless, he does possess "deity" status to a significant degree.
Last time I stayed at a mom and pop motel, it was the Gideon Bible that was still in the dresser drawer, so I reckon ol Darwin still ain't been "deified" enough. I'll be willing to bet that that ol deification of Darwin is for rhetorical usage, and not at all to cast him as the Second Coming, but I could be wrong. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/17/2009 7:23:23 AM | Verzen>its you who controls whether you end up in hell...not God...you have a choice to believe or not...but...you do have to believe in da man name JESUS' and take him as your savior to go to heaven...but you must not believe there is a Heaven...huh...but you do believe there is a hell...wow...i'm impress...we're getting somewhere...Amen Bro!  | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/17/2009 10:12:16 AM | I find the funniest part is that evolution isn't a theory. It's a fact.
Only the mechanics are a theory.
Most of the basis for Chemistry is based on atomic theory, but quite a bit about it is hard fact.
Just the same as the universe's origins 15 billion years ago. It's fact that it has been expanding from a point. The mechanics of the big bang are the theory.
And some clarification for the intellectually inferior: Evolution has absolutely zero to do with the big bang, it also has absolutely zero to do with how life began. The latter is called abiogenisis. Quit lumping them together as they aren't even in the same sciences. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/17/2009 12:41:58 PM | xfoe,
My favorite part about Christians attempting to marry cosmology theory to discredit biology goes something like this:
Me: [Winning argument about evolution]
Christian: Oh yeah, what about big bang? That can't be true - what was here before the big bang?
Me: Well, first of all they're un-related topics. One is cosmology, one is biology - which would you like to discuss?
Christian: Well, they are related - because we're talking about going back in history to figuring out how it all began. What was here before the big bang? If you don't know, then God must have created it.
Me: Actually, you're trying to figure out how it all began, and how they're related. But, they're still two different fields & theories. And, we don't know if big bang is what happened - we just have observations that confirm the theory. And, science is unable to explain what (if anything) was here before big bang. We've not made any discoveries about that yet. However, it's not a scientific view that something came from nothing - that's a Christian view. What was here before God? Who created God?
Christian:
a) [insert awkward silence here]
b) [insert on-the-fly rational here]
c) all of the above | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/17/2009 3:30:35 PM | RE Msg: 52 by NerdStatus:
Anyway, I do agree Darwin & Evolution are closely tied, and often people try to deamonize the man (Darwin) in order to attack his theory (Evolution). Which is silly, his theories should be either attacked or accepted on their own merit, not the merit or caliber of the man. You're right. WE SHOULD.
However, let's look at what actually happens. When people like Pasteur and Jenner proposed their theories, rational scientists questioned their theories and were sceptical of them, until they were explained the experiments and their results that proved those theories beyond question. So when we went to school and learned such theories, it only makes sense that if we were equally rational thinkers, that we would equally be as sceptical of them, until our science teachers explained the experiments their results that proved those theories beyond question. That's only rational.
But what happens in school? Did our science teachers explain those exact experiments and their results? Nope. Did everyone question those theories and be sceptical about them until they were explained these experiments and their results? Nope.
What happens then, if our teachers explain to us a theory that has not been proved, or is even wrong? Do we show any method of behaviour that would let us figure out for ourselves if our science teachers are lying to us? Nope. We would have done the same as we do for those that have been proved. We would accept them without question, without any proof.
That suggests that we were NOT acting like rational thinkers. It suggests that as kids, and even as teens, even in university, that we are just accepting what we are told without question, on the pure blind belief that our teachers are inerrant and incapable of being wrong, when they can, and sometimes are, for they are human, and "to err is human", as Alexander Pope rightly pointed out.
Then, having accepted these beliefs without being proved, even erroneous ones, we then argue that anyone who disagrees with us is wrong. We even bring copious proofs that we are right. But we have never looked for these proofs when we needed to, when we should have looked for them, when we were being told them, or when we questioned them. We only looked for them when others questioned them to prove them wrong. We're using proofs to justify our prior assumptions.
That doesn't really lead to a very successful way of validating theories that we have been told. But it makes for great obedience and indoctrination, and allows us to accept what we are TOLD about science, without anyone who tells us this every having to back up their words, even if they know they are lying through their teeth.
Is that a good thing? Nope. Does that guarantee that a lot of what we think is true, is probably wrong, and pure manipulation, to make us willing slaves? Yes. Does that guarantee that anyone who questions scientific theories that are wrong, are likely to be vilified? Yes. What does that do to science? It makes it a snail, when it could be a hare, not because we are being cautious, but because we are being incredibly incautious to not verify what we are told in science classes.
Does that lead to arguments between us and people more in the know? Yes, because we refuse to accept that we might be wrong, because we never had the guts to question our science teachers and demand that they back up what they said, when it was our right to, and when we should have done. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/17/2009 4:46:28 PM |
Did our science teachers explain those exact experiments and their results?
Mine did.
What happens then, if our teachers explain to us a theory that has not been proved, or is even wrong?
A theory that's not been proved, or been under peer review isn't a theory – it's a hypotheses. And, probably shouldn't be taught on a HS level, as there's too many fundamental Theories to cover in too little time already.
we are just accepting what we are told without question
Most scientific things we covered in my courses that I had any interest in, I studied further. Which lead to vetting evolution, and disproving creationism (which, by the way, shouldn't be classified as a Scientific Theory anymore. It's postulates have been proven wrong, and there's no supporting evidence of it's remaining postulates).
then argue that anyone who disagrees with us is wrong
I argue my understanding of something, and listen to what others have to say. If their understanding something seems superior to mine (better supporting evidence, evidence discrediting my understanding etc), I generally adopt it. Which is how I went from a creationist to believing in evolution. The evidence for evolution is growing stronger and stronger every day, and creationism is weaker and weaker every day.
Is that a good thing? Nope. Does that guarantee that a lot of what we think is true, is probably wrong, and pure manipulation, to make us willing slaves?
Agreed. It's important to keep an open mind to new evidence, and it's impact on current understandings.
we never had the guts to question our science teachers and demand that they back up what they said, when it was our right to, and when we should have done.
I did, it got me in trouble.
A lot. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/17/2009 5:11:24 PM |
we never had the guts to question our science teachers and demand that they back up what they said, when it was our right to, and when we should have done. I did, it got me in trouble.
I did, too... and it garnered the respect of my teachers for pointing out their mistakes.
(It got me in trouble with my fellow students, who seemed to resent the fact that I was correcting the teacher...) | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/17/2009 5:36:50 PM | We asked questions and challenged science teachers in high school and later in college/university, and never had one that got mad. If anything they were overjoyed to see students who were curious, wanted further proof of the facts or theories being presented.
Hindsight shows that those of us who question or challenge have done this from childhood, and had parents who not only valued education but encouraged us to ask questions. Even if it meant asking over and over, until we got an answer or explanation.
~Beth~ | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/17/2009 6:46:25 PM | Och aye scotland so this strata, erm I mean starts great...mind you cant say I have heard of glen glaster - google map that twaddle..shrugs
Darwin - what doth I know about him well I know he has great press and is misquoted often nowadays...and extrapolated oft. Perhaps he best have stuck to the cementatious matrix of his predecessors period as many know from looking at a world map to those of us evolved monkeys..who would have thought. nae asked similar qa plate techtonics versus banna munching ape - prob about 20% more than likely
I know, bless ms eve, that all of human evolutionary extrapolation is hypothesised on remains that would barely fill a room and wistful thinking fletting of thought
do we get it wrong - well my thoughts are well known. Yes. tis fun finding out the more we learn the more we have to learn - almost exponential
A question answered often raises many additional related questions to be brief
erm so i concur darwin was given a face, not his own (misquoted) by so called intellectuals, or most likely drunkards from pub lunch tomfoolery
ramble ramble..tis my birthaday and surely allowed to do so
Now kneel | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:35:14 PM | | I know for a fact Darwin was a regular joe, nevermind scientist. He was often down at the village pub tying one on, getting into fistfights, wenching etc. In fact it was in a drunken stupor he first came across the idea of evolution! He couldn't help but note that as he got progressively more drunk over the evening how the ugly women kept evolving into better and better looking women! And for the record, yeah, he hit that that shit like Ike hit Tina! | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/19/2009 3:57:49 PM | | I find if funny when I mention about how Darwin was wrong. He hypothesized a tree of life where evolution branches off sort of like a family tree. This type of genetic diversification has been proven wrong, for example all bacteria have their DNA outside of the nucleus, and can transfer DNA from one bacteria to another easily. Turns the tree more into a web. On mentioning this people are like "So, you are a creationist then?" haha... | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
