|
|
|
|
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/1/2008 4:59:51 PM | Jacobus, I give Aquinas every credit for his intelligence, and I would no more argue against that than I would argue against Aristotle's intelligence--and I think it's meaningful that Aquinas's process of "proving" the existence of a prime mover (for him, God) was based on Aristotle's logical method, by which he "proved" a prime mover wholly outside (and prior to) the Christian world view.
But as you point out, Aquinas was not a scientist. That's not a slam against him--he was working and thinking in a world which had not yet seen the birth of SCIENCE in a modern sense. But our world is a different one, and our paradigms have certainly shifted, and this is not the only area of Aquinas's thought to be AFFECTED (or modified or even disproved) by that shift--after all, Aquinas also "proved" that God's creation of woman wasn't a "mistake, even DESPITE her obvious (and given) physical and intellectual inferiority.
So what I can't fathom, therefore, is why anyone would think that this method of reasoning out GOD's existence IS Science or that it has a place in SCIENCE instruction. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:15:10 PM |
Following what the Angelic Doctor said, I do believe that God's existence can be philosophically (but not scientifically) demonstrated.
Pah, hardly, the issue of gods existence is one of those issues which can't be demonstrated either way. All proofs in for and against naturally have issues with them, but it's really outside the boundaries of this discussion, which is evolution and this absurd movie.
As for what any of this has to do with ID, I have to admit, the ID vs. evolution debate has never really concerned me. As papistical and set in my medieval, indulgence-seeking ways as I am.... I'm not particularly bothered with the idea of evolution. I don't necessarily support it, either. I just prefer to say that I don't know enough about the issue to say one way or the other and leave it at that.
This is an attitude I can admire, simply not knowing is fine, as long as you're willing to allow the people who do know the ability to teach. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/8/2008 6:35:15 PM | Posted by stonestongue
Einstein believed in ID? E. Kyro, are you purposely lying?
No, are you?
Copied from your profile:
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein
Well, I want to first thank The Mad Fiddler for saving me the time of posting what Einstein thought of this matter... I would have thought we'd expelled this myth in this forum at least.
Now as to the quote on my profile, it fits in with my side of the arguement... It would mean that he thought I.D. was blind just like he thought using his information concerning nuclear power to harm people was lame.
Sounds like you got enough rattles already.
One can never have too many rattles... Let me know if you change your mind. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:44:56 AM | I didn't read everything, but I thought Einstein thought monotheism was naive.
I would imagine he would think that if the universe could ever be thought as intelligently designed it was simply that things grew to astounding complexity only through logical progressions. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/9/2008 7:50:36 AM | Whenever you see someone saying Einstein was a believer they are ignorantly repeating misinformation that was quote mined.
For example I've seen him quoted by creationists as saying:
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance
But then if you read the full context of what he said it paints a very different picture:
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history.
That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/10/2008 3:15:25 PM | ^^^ Those are questions. Can you ask a question about American policy yet still believe in it? Of course not. Asking a question means you don't believe in the thing, because no-one who believes in something would ever question it, right?
I would suggest you consider that although your comments might be furthering the cause of your beliefs, they might not be furthering truth. What is more important to you, that others share your beliefs, or that everyone sees the truth?
If truth is your goal, I suggest that you stick to only very clear statements that Einstein made. It might not help you to get everyone to think like you. But it might get everyone closer to your goal, that of the truth. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/10/2008 4:12:47 PM | Ahoy, fishies! Hopefully all are well. I am aware that it has been some time since I've posted extensively on the site, and to all the newcomers, I say "welcome".
Now, those who know me also know that it takes me a while to post, since I find it advisable to read the entirety of a thread prior to tossing my opinion out there. In light of this, I trust folks won't mind if I forgo discussing (at least, initially) logical fallacies and the probabilities of the great men of science holding one religious position or another.
So, the point, right? The movie in question. Haven't seen it, myself, since I'm in Canada and it doesn't open here 'til June. Bummer, you know? Meantime, since (as those who've been here a while probably already know) I'm an avid follower of the "debate" over ID v. Evolution and a vocal advocate for legitimate science, I've been researching the film and its effect on the controversy.
However, I kept missing the point, and I'm going to posit that most of us have been for quite some time. It wasn't until I began reading through this thread that it was clear.
I have been dawned upon (quite an experience, I must say), and I link it to the inspired recognition by another poster of the broad distinction between descriptive scientific theory and prescriptive (or proscriptive) social policy. Not so much a direct causal relation, honestly, but the cognitive gear-change induced me to think outside the frame that has been imposed upon the debate.
The important point to recognise here is not that ID is not science, not that evolutionary theory is, not that the folks in the movie are making spurious claims about their treatment at the hands of the "scientific establishment", and not that the proof otherwise is readily available.
The important point here is simply this: Compassion.
Earlier allusions were made to American and British scientists who supported and implemented eugenics, as well as to Mengele and Hitler, and the point shouldn't have to be made that the era of World War II really was a veritable playground for sociopaths. The interesting thing there is that, endemic to sociopathy is a lack of empathy or compassion.
Compassion also factors in as the argument countering eugenics itself: a social adaptation that benefits the species as a whole. This in itself can be investigated along lines of behavioural evolution, providing yet more evidence, although at this point (and in the context of this thread) it's unnecessary.
Further, in his open letter to respond to "Mr. J", Professor Dawkins demonstrates beautifully the use of compassion in addressing the necessity for it: manipulation.
While the illustrative nature of Dawkins' letter shows a "quick-and-dirty" example of the real issue at hand, we need to be aware of the truth of the challenge ahead of those of us who realise the truth.
"Mr. J" was responding to something immediate; he'd recently watched the movie, his disbelief had been temporarily suspended (apparently along with critical thinking faculties), and his reflexive action in response to what he was assured was true was to strike out against the injustice he was given to perceive. We're only talking about a brief, periodic exposure, here (as, no doubt, "Mr. J" had come across ID or some argument for it before). Imagine, then, the impact of prolonged, episodic exposure to this flawed reasoning, emotional appeal, and investment of faith in the authority of those one has chosen to believe.
Here's where I begin frothing at the mouth in the minds of many readers, since this appears to be the same strain of conspiracy-theory paranoia evident in the film, right? Not so much.
Although it seems a thin line at times, I'm talking not about "brainwashing" or "mind control", so much as socialisation. Humans tend to at least attempt to conform to the standards of their peer groups, both in the close, personal quarters of friendship and common faith, and in the larger sense of regional or societal identity, yes? This easily includes shared interests and opinions, both of which are known to change over time, and can be influenced by strong emotional factors, which in turn (as we have duly observed with relation not only to the film, but more generally the subject matter itself) can be manipulated by those who know what "buttons" to push.
Once again, the reference has already been made: the correlation of science and Nazism. But, let's explore some interesting parallels in a different area, shall we?
Hitler used: scientific sounding arguments (eugenics), social conventions (mistrust of the Jews, homosexuals, and other minorities), religious language (conflating his genocide and evil with legitimate faith), etc.
Now in this film, we see folks using: scientific sounding arguments (ID), social conventions (mistrust of academia), religious language (the lifting whole cloth of creationist arguments to form those of ID), etc.
And, as those of us who've been paying attention to the "debate" for the past twenty or so years are aware, the (ID) movement is a lot more entrenched than merely the work of a few duplicitous movie makers and one sadly ill-informed character actor.
In the final analysis, what's important, even here on the forums, is to treat the misguided victims of this deception with (you guessed it!) compassion, understanding that their minds have truly been twisted by the fabrications of these arguments, and striving to patiently educate them as to the facts.
To that end, for those posters who have felt compelled to speak highly of either the film itself or the agenda it promotes, I wish to express my sympathy for your injured sense of justice, your cognitive dissonance, and the fear doubtless engendered by the apparent threat of having to reexamine your faith in the light of actual, rather than religiously or politically proclaimed, truth. We're here for you. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/10/2008 8:30:45 PM | RE msg 182 by Feral:
Feral, I thank you for your compassion. But I would like to educate you on what compassion really means. I have seen people be "compassionate" with others. I have had people be "compassionate" with me. However, it was condescending, rude, insulting, and quite frankly, made me feel low and abased, until I felt like I had been used, as if I had been abused. I have spoken to many people, and they hated it when people were "compassionate" to them, and would rather have been alone with their pain, than be "helped".
Why did I and others so despise compassion?
What I had to first understand about compassion, is that it meant that others understood how I felt, and they reacted to that, in a way that made me feel better about myself and me feelings. So in order for others to have compassion for me, they had to first understand how I felt, which is called empathy. So I tried to explain how I felt to others. But they didn't understand. When I tried to make it clear, I was ignored. It became very clear to me that the problem with compassion is that it requires empathy, and the problem with empathy is that it is incredibly easy to imagine that you understand what the other person is going through, by imagining what you would feel like if you were in that situation, as you are right now, and it is incredibly easy to forget that as you are right now, you would never feel the way that other person is feeling in the first place, and so it is incredibly hard to imagine how that person is feeling in reality.
It is like a man imagining how a woman feels giving birth. You cannot imagine it. But if someone told you that you were being sent to prison and all new inmates had to see the prison doctor, who was going to shove a tennis ball up the hole at the bottom of your p*nis, for fun, and 4 convicts were going to hold you down while he did it, so you couldn't get out of it, you'd get the idea. You'd probably run for the hills.
The same works for a woman imagining how a man feels asking a woman out. Most women don't see why it is so difficult, until they do it. Once they do, you see them post on POF, and they cannot imagine doing it again.
So when you are compassionate to others, you have to put yourself in their shoes. I suggest that you imagine that some scientist decides that your beliefs are crazy. Say you discover that your mother has cancer. Say that you look for answers, and doctors tell you that she is incurable. Say that you develop the exact same symptoms. But you don't want to go to your doctor, only to have him tell you to get chemo, 'cause it will only prolong your suffering, as it has for her. But say that you go to a doctor, not your regular doctor, and give a false name, so that you can find out and make your own mind up. Say that you have it. Say that you decide to live your life as much as you can. Say that in a few weeks, you meet someone in a pub, mention that you have cancer, and he says he has a 100% cure, that is easy, with no side-effects, really quick and cheap. Say that you try it, just because you have no hope. Now, imagine it works. All your symptions are gone. You go to your regular doctor to check, and he says you are perfectly healthy, no cancer of any kind. So you tell your doctor. He doesn't believe you. He's never seen you with cancer. You cannot get hold of the doctor you saw, because he's moved. You try and get hold of your records and show them to your doctor. Your doctor just tells you that it is someone else's records, because it is not in your name. You tell your mother. She doesn't believe you. You beg her to try. She says "If the greatest doctors in the world can't cure cancer, how can you?" You put it on a website. Everyone says you are crazy, because science knows that you cannot be right. You're delusional. You're nuts. You're a madman.
You have the cure for cancer, and no-one wants to know. Worse still, you have to watch your mother slowly slipping away, and you have the cure, and she won't let you give it to her.
Now, would you like others to be "compassionate" to you?
What you would want, is for others to realise that you are a smart person, that you have a degree, that when you talk about anything else but this, everyone thinks you are the smartest person they ever met. But in this one thing, you suddenly become a dumba**. It doesn't make sense. Even if you are completely wrong about this, either you are smart or you aren't. If you aren't, then everyone else isn't too, for thinking that you are so smart about everything else. If you are smart, then you would be using your smarts with this too, and at the very least, you have extremely solid reasons for believing as you do, and everyone who knows you should give you the same credit for thinking out what you think of this, as much as they do for everything else. People should think that it is going to take a substantial amount of evidence to disprove your claim, because people do believe that you are smart about everything else.
They don't have to believe you. But for them to be compassionate to you, they have to give you the respect they would do about anything else.
If they don't happen to disagree with you about anything else, then this shows their true opinion of you. If they think you are a dumba** when they disagree with you, and they think you are extremely smart when they agree with you, or they don't have an opinion, then they are just flattering you, and their opinions mean nothing. They are no better than a player, who is trying to con you out of everything you have. You cannot trust what they say. Their opinions are no longer worth listening to. That makes them no good to be around, and not worth your time.
Frankly, when you are being "compassionate" with others, you are basically implying that you are smarter than them, but you'll pretend that you aren't. That is a backhanded insult, because you aren't saying that you are smarter than they are, but that is what you really mean. That is also passive aggression. No-one cannot argue with it, because you won't say what you really think, that you are smarter than them. So they cannot argue with you, and you are playing games with them, so they cannot have an open discussion with you, because you are not being open with them in the first place.
If you really think you are smarter than them, then at least have the decency to admit it. You'll see that you have no basis to say that, and you'll admit your POV has no basis, and you'll find the truth. Or, you'll state your reasons, they will list their reasons for not agreeing with you, and you'll either listen or you'll ignore them. Either way, at least you've got a chance to get to the truth.
I find that in a one-2-one discussion, it takes about 2 hours of hammering, before the other person admits that they think they are smarter than me, and then it takes only a few minutes to prove them wrong, and then they suddenly realise they have to take my POV seriously, and they stop thinking they are right. They just start asking themselves if what I say makes sense, and they say that what I say does make sense, 90% of the time. At that point, it shocks them, because they realise that they are making a paradigm shift in their point of view, about something I already realised years ago. It just took them longer to catch up.
If this doesn't happen, then it's like talking to an evangelist. They're not listening.
I love science. But when people throw the word "science" at you, as if it means something that will disprove your POV, when all it means is a method of trying to understand things, and your POV, in the first place, you feel like there is no point in talking to them.
Sometimes, they are right. But you have to go all around, looking for answers, to find them on your own, because they don't have a solid basis for their POV, and then you end up understanding what they believe better than they do, and you lose respect for them, for not knowing what they are talking about.
Either way, it's disheartening.
If you don't believe that science has a lot of dogma in it, that is your POV. But considering that many others have found that science as we know it to be filled with dogma, it isn't a POV that I find supportable.
I can quote just one example, although there are many others. Doctors now say that caloric restriction is the way to live longest. They just recently discovered that the longest lived people restrict how much they eat. But doctors don't know why. Maimonides, a Spanish doctor from the Middle Ages, who was the chief physician to the Sultan of Egypt, and a well-respected doctor from his time, said this 800 years ago. But doctors are only getting around to this NOW. Yet doctors aren't quoting Maimonides. If they'd bothered to consider he might be right, then medicine would be 800 years farther than it is. We would be living like it was 2808, not 2008. Can you imagine how long people would live in 2808? Can you imagine how infuriating it is, that we are 800 years behind the times? It's like saying that we are still back in The Dark Ages!
That is how many people feel about science in our current times.
No-one would seriously take the word of a quack from the Dark Ages. You might consider that he COULD be right, if you were open-minded. But you would err on the side of caution. So you can imagine how some people feel about what scientists say in our current time.
You can trust electricity, because you can see it working, in your house.
You can trust the internal combustion engine, because you can see it working in your car.
You can trust penicillin, because you can see it working on the sick.
But you can only trust these things for sure, because you can see it working for yourself, not because a doctor or a scientists told you it worked.
As Evariste Galois, the mathematician credited with the invention of Group Theory by age 21, said, you should read the books where a scientist proves himself wrong, because those books are the ones that contain the least bias, so are most likely to be true, and therefore the ones you can learn the most from.
Science is all about scepticism. We should be sceptical of anyone who claims to prove himself right. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/11/2008 7:11:22 AM | Scorpio;
Feral, I thank you for your compassion. But I would like to educate you on what compassion really means. I have seen people be "compassionate" with others. I have had people be "compassionate" with me. However, it was condescending, rude, insulting, and quite frankly, made me feel low and abased, until I felt like I had been used, as if I had been abused. I have spoken to many people, and they hated it when people were "compassionate" to them, and would rather have been alone with their pain, than be "helped".
I know this wasn't directed at me, but there is a very big difference between showing compassion to someone and feeling sorry for them.
Compassion requires you to put yourself in the others position and treating them how you would wish to be treated... If someone was truely showing you compassion, rudeness and condescention wouldn't be felt because they wouldn't feel "above" you, but "with" you.
So when you are compassionate to others, you have to put yourself in their shoes. I suggest that you imagine that some scientist decides that your beliefs are crazy.
The scientist would have to prove your beliefs are crazy or he/she isn't worth their salt in the field.
You put it on a website. Everyone says you are crazy, because science knows that you cannot be right. You're delusional. You're nuts. You're a madman.
To put a cure for cancer on the website, you have to actually have the names of a few people that have been cured or you are just guessing... For a look at how the scientific community actually acts towards possible cures given by folks who could be called "nut jobs" follow my link... This guy claimed to find a cure using a couple of pots and pans and a hotdog... Turns out it's a very exciting find.
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/159/the_kanzius_machine
Those who are working to beat cancer already have compassion towards the suffering and if presented with a possible solution they try to make it work.. For that you need more than coincidence... You need a corelation between the possible cure and the actual disappearance of the cancer.
A person I know said that their cousin beat cancer... She started smoking crack when it was made to look like it was too late for her and miraculously, her cancer disappeared... Now if based on this I said crack was a cure for cancer, you wouldn't want me to spread that until a corelation was actually found would you? Simple coincidence can't be considered a cure.
Without compassion, there would be no one looking to beat a disease they never got... Feeling sorry for them isn't enough... You have to relate with them... You have to know we are all in this thing together... That takes compassion.
We can't take I.D. seriously after it's debunked... That would be dishonest.
There's no compassion in dishonesty.
Frankly, when you are being "compassionate" with others, you are basically implying that you are smarter than them, but you'll pretend that you aren't. That is a backhanded insult, because you aren't saying that you are smarter than they are, but that is what you really mean. That is also passive aggression. No-one cannot argue with it, because you won't say what you really think, that you are smarter than them. So they cannot argue with you, and you are playing games with them, so they cannot have an open discussion with you, because you are not being open with them in the first place.
I couldn't disagree more... Being compassionate towards someone is to see them as you see how you could have been in their position... If you feel like you are better in any way than another individual, you aren't being compassionate towards them... To be in a better position to help another only means that they will be in a better position to help someone else.
There's no compassion in dishonesty.
I love science. But when people throw the word "science" at you, as if it means something that will disprove your POV, when all it means is a method of trying to understand things, and your POV, in the first place, you feel like there is no point in talking to them.
But science is all about understanding the way things work... If there is a flaw in the model, it is sciences job to sniff it out.
When you say you're POV is your opinion, you will be welcome to it, but when you say it can be proven, you have to actually prove it... To have compassion for the person whos POV you are arguing, you must also have compassion for the truth... You can't pretend someones subjective truth is objective just because you feel sorry for them... This would show no compassion to the whole as it spreads dishonesty.
There is no compassion in dishonesty.
I find that in a one-2-one discussion, it takes about 2 hours of hammering, before the other person admits that they think they are smarter than me, and then it takes only a few minutes to prove them wrong, and then they suddenly realise they have to take my POV seriously, and they stop thinking they are right.
That's what this is about? I'm not sure I've seen too many folks here say they think they are smarter than you... Even if someone is smarter than another, that doesn't mean they will be right.
If you don't believe that science has a lot of dogma in it, that is your POV. But considering that many others have found that science as we know it to be filled with dogma, it isn't a POV that I find supportable.
Some scientists can have their dogmas for sure, but science itself presumes something has to be proven in order to be considered a fact... That is the opposite of dogma.
from Wiki;
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek d??µa, plural d??µata) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument.
I bolded where it's obvious that dogma cannot exist in scientific study... Compassion for a persons idea shouldn't get in the way of compassion for the truth... Not only are you misleading the one whos POV is in question, but you are misleading others in turn... If something cannot stand up to rational argument, it is not going to be considered scientific.
Period. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/11/2008 9:06:21 AM | | Very sorry to double post but I just wanted to say one thing real quicklike... You don't necessarily have to know exactly what someone else is feeling to have compassion for them... You just can't give up trying. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/11/2008 12:19:56 PM |
Can you ask a question about American policy yet still believe in it? Of course not. Asking a question means you don't believe in the thing, because no-one who believes in something would ever question it, right? I disagree.
I question my beliefs all the time. When others question things I believe in, I research the answers to those questions. I try to prove my beliefs wrong regularly, and in the process end up learning about the world and strengthening my belief system. I would think that if anyone was afraid to question their beliefs, it would be because deep down they know their beliefs are wrong. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/11/2008 5:33:30 PM | RE msg 184 by Stonestongue:
I know this wasn't directed at me, but there is a very big difference between showing compassion to someone and feeling sorry for them. I cannot see a difference. If I feel sorry for someone, it is because I have put myself in their position. If I don't put myself in their position, that is when I think that any person would not allow themselves to be in that situation, so that is when I imagine that their situation was something they chose, and I don't feel sorry for them.
I know it may not appear that way, but that is because when people "claim" to feel sorry for the other person, they really don't. They just say they do, to avoid seeming callous. It's PR, not genuine emotion.
Compassion requires you to put yourself in the others position and treating them how you would wish to be treated... If someone was truely showing you compassion, rudeness and condescention wouldn't be felt because they wouldn't feel "above" you, but "with" you. If you feel "with" someone, then you are right in that you don't condescend to them. So you are right in that the other person doesn't feel the you are rude or condescending to them. Sometimes, I have felt that people who showed me compassion were "with me". Sometimes, I felt that people who were cruel and heartless to me were "with me", because they truly put themselves in my position, and realised that what I wanted, and needed, was someone to be hard on me, to push me to do what I needed to do, because I needed to do those things for myself. My High School Maths teacher was like that. He put me through hell to push me to do Maths, and I am proud and glad of it, because I am 100% sure that he did those things to help me, not himself. He knew how I felt. He knew that this was what I would have wanted if I could have been honest with myself at the time. I feel honoured for being taught so well by him.
The scientist would have to prove your beliefs are crazy or he/she isn't worth their salt in the field. Yup. But does that mean that it is not possible for a scientist to be well-regarded by the public and by the others in his field, and still be like that? All it takes is for others to not put themselves in the situation of the person he said was crazy. This quality is called empathy. From what I have been told by people, including therapists, it's rarer than gold and diamonds, and very few people are very empathetic.
If everyone was extremely empathetic, such a scientist would be regarded as not worth their salt.
If very few were empathetic, such a scientist could easily regarded as very important.
But if everyone was extremely empathetic, compassion would be everywhere.
Is compassion everywhere?
To put a cure for cancer on the website, you have to actually have the names of a few people that have been cured or you are just guessing... For a look at how the scientific community actually acts towards possible cures given by folks who could be called "nut jobs" follow my link... This guy claimed to find a cure using a couple of pots and pans and a hotdog... Turns out it's a very exciting find.  I haven't looked at it, but I'm sure that you wouldn't have picked it, if it had any possible relevance. But that doesn't make it any more or less true. How do you know that a couple of pots and pans and a hotdog won't cure cancer? Do you have a credible reason? Or do you reject it out of hand?
You need SOME basis to make a claim. But you don't need a theory to make a claim, and a theory will NOT mean that a claim is any more credible. You need to use logic, not experiments, to prove something. Experiments provide data. But it is logic, that transforms that data into something credible. However, logic does NOT rely on theories. Logic relies upon cold, hard deduction.
Those who are working to beat cancer already have compassion towards the suffering and if presented with a possible solution they try to make it work.. I doubt this. To have compassion, you have to REALLY put yourself in the situation of the cancer sufferer. That is the opposite of what you would feel if you had cancer. My father had cancer for 14 years. I still couldn't tell you exactly what he went through. But I have a lot better idea than someone who claims to be curing cancer, because he has compassion for those who have it, because I've seen with my eyes and lived for 14 years with someone who had it, and seen how it affected my family.
For that you need more than coincidence... You need a corelation between the possible cure and the actual disappearance of the cancer. I doubt this. A correlation is the exact opposite of a theory. It is when you establish that the cancer disappears when the cure is present and never returns, and when any combination of factors other than the cure itself do not in any way at all increase or decrease the disappearance of the cancer. Otherwise, the cure is not a cure. The actual cure becomes a combination of things, of which the claimed cure is only part. To forget this usually leads to people being given cures that fail some of the people, because those who offer the cure forget the exact conditions that enable the cure to happen in the first place. It is correlation that establishes a relationship. But correlation in reality, not the correlation that we see in our minds.
A person I know said that their cousin beat cancer... She started smoking crack when it was made to look like it was too late for her and miraculously, her cancer disappeared... Now if based on this I said crack was a cure for cancer, you wouldn't want me to spread that until a corelation was actually found would you? Simple coincidence can't be considered a cure. Actually, simple coincidence is the definition of correlation. I would also like to know more about her, because there is a very good possibility that the crack caused a chemical change which allowed the cancer to be cured. I could not say offhand if crack would cure all cancers, or even someone else in her position. But it is worth exploring her situation. That's how our knowledge grows. By suspending disbelief, and by never dismissing anything, no matter how crazy it might sound to you. What we see as crazy is the world we live in. No-one sane would ever suggest that light could be both a wave and a particle. No-one. Ever. But it's true. No-one would ever suggest that the mind can give you a physical illness, with physical symptoms. But psychosomatic illnesses do exist. They are true. What's really crazy is to dismiss these people, unless you know for sure what cured them, and you prove it beyond doubt by curing other people the same way.
I couldn't disagree more... Being compassionate towards someone is to see them as you see how you could have been in their position... If you feel like you are better in any way than another individual, you aren't being compassionate towards them... To be in a better position to help another only means that they will be in a better position to help someone else. You are claiming that people aren't being compassionate. I am claiming that people say they are being compassionate when they are not. We don't disagree. I just am more interested in the truth than what people say.
There's no compassion in dishonesty. There's no compassion in self-dishonesty. There is every compassion in being dishonest with others. When your friend is crying because his girlfriend left him, because he cheated on her, he knows what he did wrong. He just needs a shoulder to cry on. He doesn't need someone to tell him the truth right then. But later on, when he's out with you, and he meets a new girl, he does need the truth, so that he doesn't make the same mistake. If that ruins your chances with someone, then if you are a friend, you'll put his happiness first. You can get your own girl. One less chance is not going to ruin your life. But he needs to be reminded to not go off the rails and cheat, and that's your job as a friend.
Compassion goes hand in hand with self-honesty, because you cannot put yourself in someone else's position, as long as you hang onto your preconceptions, your prejudices, your assumptions, your fears, your ambition, your desires, because his will differ from yours. As long as you stick to being you, you cannot conceive of what it is like to be someone else. The only way to put yourself in his position is to be honest with yourself, to admit ALL of your weaknesses. That is what makes it so hard to be compassionate.
But if you can do that, you can always see the other person's POV, and you wouldn't disagree with them, at all, because you really can see just how strong their argument is from their position. You realise that you can see things from 2 people's positions: your own, and theirs. Who is smarter? You? Who is better? You? Who is more right? You? But his argument looks just as strong as yours does, from his position. So how can you say your argument is right, if his is as good as yours, just from his perspective? In order to say that your argument is right, you would either have to see how your argument is right from HIS perspective, or you would have to claim that your perspective is "better" than his, because you are. But if you see how your argument is right from HIS perspective, then that must be easy to explain. So he'd never disagree with you. So there would never be an argument.
Hence, if you disagree with someone, I can see only 3 options:
1) You can see how you are right from his perspective, you explain it to him from his perspective, and he agrees with you.
2) You think you are right, and he is wrong, because you cannot see his perspective at all.
3) You accept that his argument, from his perspective, is at least as strong as yours. In which case, you cannot judge between the two. So you would agree that his argument is valid, just not for you. You would agree to disagree with him. But you would still take the POV that his argument is totally and completely valid.
This is why I have such great problems with many people. I can see their argument, from their perspective. I can see how my argument makes no sense, from their perspective. I don't know how to prove my argument, from their perspective, and it often takes me a long time to figure out why my argument is correct from their perspective, sometimes years, by which time, they've moved onto discussing other things. But I find that very few people can see things from my perspective. I know only a very few people who even believe that they understand me, let alone those who I believe understand me, and I find that most things I explain to people go over their heads, unless I treat them like a child, in which case, I feel like I'm condescending to them, but they seem to like it a lot. Don't ask me why.
It makes me realise that listening without judging someone else is a much more worthy skill than being able to convince others of your POV. But it seems to me that persuasion will get you more of our society's accolades than listening.
But science is all about understanding the way things work... If there is a flaw in the model, it is sciences job to sniff it out. When you say science, do you mean science, as done by the robots in Isaac Asimov's stories, who have no ego, no survival instinct, no emotions, nothing that can cloud the truth? Or do you mean science done by mythical people, who never let their emotions cloud them? Or do you mean things that are exerimented on by us humans, whose egos can drive them to see black as white, and white as black? Whose emotions cloud the mind, and confuse us? Whose needs for money, and for a sense of appreciation from others, can and do drive us to push our ideas forward, even beyond the truth? If you believe that science is discovered by people who are incapable of great bias, and unlikely to be very biased, then I would love to meet these people, because 95% of people I know are extremely biased towards their own needs and vanities, and of the 5% that are left, they are still very biased. To be honest, I have discovered that everyone is biased, including me, but that everyone will not be biased as long as they can see no possible connection between the subject matter and their personal interests. However, your job and your publications are a very big part of your personal interests. If scientists were never paid for what they did, and all work had to be published anonymously and you could never discuss your work, only anonymous publications, and there were lots of different scientists publishing, I would believe that there would be very little bias, because the chances are that anyone discussing a paper would not be discussing yours. Even if they did, they would never believe you that you published it. So there would be no money in it, and no fame in it, and no kudos in it. There would be nothing to gain but the truth. Even then, you would have to bear in mind that if a scientist is an atheist, he would be biologically biased towards a paper that he believes supports his view. The same goes for a theist. The same goes for a vegetarian and a carnivore. So there would be some bias, due to benefits, but that would not be as beneficial as the money and the fame, so it would be severely lessened. But let's be honest? How many scientists would stay in science if this were true?
When you say you're POV is your opinion, you will be welcome to it, but when you say it can be proven, you have to actually prove it... To have compassion for the person whos POV you are arguing, you must also have compassion for the truth... You can't pretend someones subjective truth is objective just because you feel sorry for them... This would show no compassion to the whole as it spreads dishonesty. Why? Do you really think the truth has feelings to be hurt? You really think you can do ANYTHING to the truth? You say you must have compassion for the truth. Put yourself in the truth's position. How does it feel to be the truth? You are the truth. You don't give a monkey's uncle what anyone says about you. You know you're right. You are the truth. You don't need friends, because you're not human. You don't have an ego. You don't have emotions. So you cannot be hurt. So you don't care what others say about you. So you cannot have compassion for the truth, by your own descriptions.
You CAN have respect for the truth, because when you respect someone, you treat them as though what they say is important, and that it matters. So the truth matters. But the truth isn't what others say. It's what is actually true. So if you have respect for the truth, then you believe that lies don't matter, but the truth does. When people need you to be tactful and say nice things about a person at his funeral, so as to be compassionate to his family, you don't mind, because lies don't matter. But when someone speaks the truth, you'll stay and listen, even if it means you have to miss your favourite TV show, because the truth matters.
There is no compassion in self-dishonesty. To be honest with yourself, means that you question what really matters. What really matters is not that you defend the truth, because no-one has the absolute truth, because we are all human, limited, so we never have the full perspective, on anything. What really matters is that you respect the truth, that when you come across a grain of truth, that you sift it, and find that grain, and hold it dear to your heart. What matters is that when you don't have a need to be compassionate, such as when you are with your friends, that you tell the truth.
You know the truth and compassion coincide, when your friends ask you what happened with that woman, and they are all egging you on to say that you slept with her, and you didn't. If you have compassion for her, you won't lie. You'll tell your friends you screwed it up, by being a jerk. But do you have the guts to say that? That is the test of a man, in my book. If you can be honest, when it'll cost YOU, but no-one else.
If you think your truth is objective, then think again. That doesn't mean that you are objective. That means that you haven't really seen it from the other person's side.
I find that in a one-2-one discussion, it takes about 2 hours of hammering, before the other person admits that they think they are smarter than me, and then it takes only a few minutes to prove them wrong, and then they suddenly realise they have to take my POV seriously, and they stop thinking they are right. That's what this is about?
I'm not sure I've seen too many folks here say they think they are smarter than you... Not here, IRL. But even here, I'm shocked at the number of emails I get from people asking me to talk, or for advice, or just to give a compliment for what I've written in the forums. I've had 108 different people make first contact with me here for the forums, who mostly just contact me because of the forums, 25 of which are straight men, and that is in the last year.
Even if someone is smarter than another, that doesn't mean they will be right. My whole point. I said that what happens IRL is that people stop thinking they are right. Usually once that happens, they speak from their own reality, not what they want me to think. It's then that they actually say the truth from their perspective and their experiences. Does it mean they end up agreeing with me? Hardly. I usually end up agreeing with other people. I lose far more arguments than I win. But it is at that point that they speak honestly. Before then, they are playing games with me. They want me to believe what they are saying is the truth, or at least what they believe, for a hidden agenda. Sometimes they are not even aware of the agenda, because it is their subconscious who is helping them. But it's still a game, and as I have a literal way of listening to people, if you play a game with me, I'll follow it, to its end. But such games aren't meant to be played that way. So I usually find out that it is a game, eventually, if I believe in them.
My main point that I was making is that people rarely say what they honestly think in their heart of hearts. They usually tell me what they would like me to think they think. IRL, it takes 2 hours of hammering someone one-on-one just to get the truth out of them.
If you don't believe that science has a lot of dogma in it, that is your POV. But considering that many others have found that science as we know it to be filled with dogma, it isn't a POV that I find supportable. Some scientists can have their dogmas for sure, but science itself presumes something has to be proven in order to be considered a fact... That is the opposite of dogma.
You are talking about the Utopia that Bacon hoped for. I am talking about what I see. You are discussing the theory. I am discussing the evidence. If the evidence doesn't seem to go in line with the theory, which do we disregard, the evidence or the theory?
I would be inclined to say that most scientists believe they are objective and unbaised. But everyone who is biased believes they are unbiased. That's why they're biased. It's why doctors make the worst patients. They think they will be a good patient, and so they never try to be a good patient, and end up a lousy patient. Same for most people. IMO, scientists who believe they are biased will counter the natural bias of all humans, and will be likely to produce unbiased results, or results with only a very small amount of bias. But scientists who believe they are not biased, will not counter their natural human bias at all, and it will run unchecked. Such biases affect the probable outcome of any experiment or conclusion. But because probabilities don't add up but multiply together, the effects of these biases don't add up but multiply together, which means they don't increase arithmetically, but geometrically, often called exponentially, also known as astronomically. It is a subtlety that is not obvious at first glance, at least not to me, but a single bias can be present in 10 experiments, to allow you to conclude the most horrendously wrong things, allowing you to commit the worst atrocities in the name of science. But because such a scientist would believe himself unbiased
So here is another question, how much bias is actually present in any officially recognised scientific experiment in the West, as an expectation, mean average? We can include all the labs that get published in the famous scientific journals. We can just check each experiment, consider any possible alternatives, and see which alternatives were missed.
This COULD be a question of belief. I am not 100% sure. But in my experience, online and offline, I'm very inclined to say there is a substantial bias, enough that would mean we would need a new mechanism to keep it out, that the current method of peer-review would not eliminate in substantial quantities. Are you willing to see my POV, that I think this issue needs a double-blind trial?
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek d??µa, plural d??µata) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument. I bolded where it's obvious that dogma cannot exist in scientific study... Compassion for a persons idea shouldn't get in the way of compassion for the truth... Not only are you misleading the one whos POV is in question, but you are misleading others in turn... If something cannot stand up to rational argument, it is not going to be considered scientific.I agree that in Utopia, or in the mind of an AI, where emotions do not cloud the mind, if something cannot stand up to rational argument, it is not going to be considered scientific. Are you seruiously going to tell me that scientists have managed to stop emotions affecting their cognitive processes? Emotions are chemicals in the brain, that affect which neural pathways are selected to be the pathways used. If you are angry, you cannot think straight. If you got dumped, you are apt to be pessimistic of the success of happiness and longevity of all relationships, and therefore will affect all of your thinking, including any studies that you are currently performing in animal mating habits. It seems odd, but people don't have minds that say "I got dumped, but you won't". People who get dumped tend to say that all relationships will end soon, and tend to advise their friends to not get involved, or to "dump him before he dumps you", or something equally destructive.
If you can explain to me, by what psychological mechanism, that science is miraculously free of the effects that psychology predict about people, such as "self-invalidation", I would really love to hear that one. Till then, I'm sticking with what I know. Humans are baised. You have to take that into account, in everything. I don't see that being taken into account within science. So I have to do so for myself, and that means that I end up disagreeing with everyone who believes everything they read that is supposed to have come from a scientist.
Take peer-review. If you wanted a critique of your work, with all the faults in it, would you send it to someone who would agree or disagree with you? Disagree. So if you wanted a good peer-review of a paper on evolutionary biology, you'd send it to some Creationist biologists, not other evolutionary biologists, because the Creationists would look up every possible way of criticising your paper. You could then read through them all, and check them out, most would be invalid, but the points that you still find valid would be the points that are weak in your paper. You would also only send it to them when they have the time to do a proper critique, such as in the summer break. But if you sent it to an editor of a journal on evolutionary biology, he would typically send it to some other evolutionary biologists, who would regularly do peer-reviews. But since these evolutionary biologists would do lots of peer-reviews, they would be more likely to skim through it, because they are reviewing loads, and don't have the time to give your paper the effort that it really deserves. You would be doing yourself, and the public, a genuine disservice, if you followed the typical commercial method.
Ultimately, the methods employed by scientists worked best when they were fighting the establishment, because the inevitable conflicts polished their research, to a fine point. But once science became popular and commercialised, it fell prey to the same problems that anything popular and commercial suffers from. It's why so many people don't like bands that go commercial and switch to popular music. It tends to be of a much lower quality.
RE msg 186 by rockondon:
I disagree. You do know I was being sarcastic in that opening paragraph, don't you? Come on, you don't really think I meant that, do you? You're smarter than that. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/11/2008 6:37:00 PM | Re: Msg 183 by scorpiomover
Feral, I thank you for your compassion. But I would like to educate you on what compassion really means. In light of the argument as to what your conception of "compassion" is, I'm curious as to whether you're appreciating my sincerity or accusing me of questioning your sanity and intelligence. Not exactly clear, I must say.
As regards the point that I was making, it is more appropriate to consider use of compassion in a legitimate sense, rather than as a ruse to establish or promote one's superiority. I am certain, though, that you are quite well aware of the distinction between merely acting compassionate and having sincere compassion.
Beyond that, I did have a number of counter points to some of the assertions made, but Stone's clarifications as to the nature of true compassion have both preempted them and rendered them moot.
Say that you develop the exact same symptoms. But you don't want to go to your doctor... This is the point that undermines the analogy, I'm afraid. Assuming cancer but refusing to get diagnosed, then finding a cure for the symptoms, technically does nothing to prove a "cure for cancer". This does nothing to question the protagonist's intelligence, but certainly doesn't support his conclusion, either.
What you would want, is for others to realise that you are a smart person, that you have a degree, that when you talk about anything else but this, everyone thinks you are the smartest person they ever met. What I for one find ironic here is that I do find you specifically and many other ID proponents in general to be very smart. The point at issue is not intelligence; it is understanding, or awareness. If it is being suggested that to show compassion is to question another's sanity or intelligence, I'm simply at a loss. That is neither the definition of compassion, nor my intent in bringing it up.
But in this one thing, you suddenly become a dumba**. Sadly, I believe you are speaking from perceived experience, and this is yet another point on which I sympathise. I have also received negative reactions regarding certain viewpoints from others who otherwise agreed with or supported me. It is sad, I will grant, that many misunderstand the distinction between disagreement and "considering themselves smarter (or better)" than others. This is, in fact, one of the reasons that I suggest a focus on legitimate compassion.
People should think that it is going to take a substantial amount of evidence to disprove your claim, because people do believe that you are smart about everything else. Or, alternately, folks should put forth the same amount of effort they otherwise would in attempting to understand your position, and from that point address the topic, yes?
I have to apologise for my own difficulty in understanding the argument here, because it almost appears that what is being advocated is assuming that something must be true, or nearly so, simply because it is being espoused by someone who is known to be otherwise very intelligent. Please clarify, if you would.
They don't have to believe you. But for them to be compassionate to you, they have to give you the respect they would do about anything else. And this is precisely what I'm advocating. Once again, the point is to be sincere in one's understanding that someone feels or believes differently, and to respect that person, regardless. Does this invalidate the compassion inherent in teaching someone otherwise who believes in something that is either untrue or injurious?
Frankly, when you are being "compassionate" with others, you are basically implying that you are smarter than them, but you'll pretend that you aren't. Whereas, I disagree, and I'm going to trust that by "you", the intent is to provide a general reference, as in "people". Yes?
I love science. But when people throw the word "science" at you, as if it means something that will disprove your POV, when all it means is a method of trying to understand things, and your POV, in the first place, you feel like there is no point in talking to them. I too love science, and I agree that, were someone to act in such a manner, it would be aggravating, to say the least. However, assuming that the Intelligent Design assertion conforms to that "method of trying to understand things" is a person's "POV", then it is necessary to point out how that viewpoint is erroneous.
The distinction with regard to this discussion is that, as I have seen it, no one has sincerely intended to "throw science" at anyone as though it would disprove their viewpoint. Perhaps I've missed something, but the essential point to all of this, sincere compassion especially, is to respect the other person and, in doing so and caring for them, correct their misconceptions and help them free themselves from the harmful manipulation imposed upon them by the perpetuators of the "debate".
Either way, it's disheartening. At times, I agree. Yet more reason we need serious, compassionate discussion and understanding of the falsifications and manipulations being perpetrated by the makers of this film and the ID agenda in general.
If you don't believe that science has a lot of dogma in it, that is your POV. But considering that many others have found that science as we know it to be filled with dogma, it isn't a POV that I find supportable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be appealing to popularity. One person asserts that the scientific method is not dogmatic (as, in fact, it is not), but since a number of other people ascribe dogma to "science", this invalidates the earlier assertion? Please clarify.
I can quote just one example, although there are many others. I know little to nothing regarding what "doctors" and Maimonides feel about caloric restriction. Thank you for calling the issue to my attention. It has, however, been "common wisdom" that fewer calories prevent obesity, heart complaints, and a number of other ailments, so the idea seems intuitive.
However, to assert that, if folks were to have stuck with a single dietary argument from one man during the Middle Ages, we'd all be 800 years further along in our medical knowledge is, at best, a non sequitur. What would have happened, then, if leeching maintained popularity? Hysterectomy for relief of female madness? The list is quite possibly as extensive as that containing the example you've given. Sadly, again, these arguments are irrelevant.
That is how many people feel about science in our current times. This, however, is exactly my point. A great many people do have a completely unfounded and unrealistic view of what they should be able to expect from science. I only assert that this is arguably a result of the same kind of mindset as insists that an untestable hypothesis should be included as science, and goes to the trouble of manipulating otherwise intelligent people into supporting such an insistence.
But you can only trust these things for sure, because you can see it working for yourself, not because a doctor or a scientists told you it worked. And, again, I agree. I accept and agree with the conclusions of evolutionary theory because I have researched the arguments, read a great deal of the literature, and can vouch for the scientific validity of the argument, if not the "absolute truth" of any given scientific claim. Since, as you say, I have no direct experience of the validity as science of a summary assertion such as ID and have only the word of those promoting it on which to base any subsequent assumptions, I do view it with scepticism.
The ultimate point is that, whether or not one disagrees with established science as science (as in the case of creationists questioning evolutionary theory), any "alternate theory" would likewise need to meet the requirements of science itself. Holding the point of view that evolution does meet the criteria and ID does not is simply a matter of acknowledging definitional facts. Holding the opposite view, or any other that elevates ID to scientific status, is simply erroneous.
Recognising these facts, and being aware that many holders of erroneous views do so simply because they are unaware of the facts involved, those who are aware of the truth must simply take the time to be patient and compassionate in addressing the misconceptions other, less well-informed people might have.
If we felt, by any means, that there was a lack of intelligence (defined as the capacity to learn), we wouldn't put forth any effort to instruct, yes? | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/11/2008 7:14:01 PM | I haven't looked at it, but I'm sure that you wouldn't have picked it, if it had any possible relevance. But that doesn't make it any more or less true. How do you know that a couple of pots and pans and a hotdog won't cure cancer? Do you have a credible reason? Or do you reject it out of hand?
I'm in a hurry right now but will come back to all of your points Scorpio... For now I will just say for this part you misunderstand me... I think there is a great amount of potential in the Kanzius machine... I don't reject it at all... What I would reject is stuff like Laetril and macrobiotics... Things that have been tested, failed and still are asserted as cures by conspiracy fanatics... This does nothing for the sufferer except give false hope.
I urge anyone who wants an end to cancer to follow the link I provided.
Is compassion everywhere?
Well, I can tell you that it's everywhere I am.
More to come in a bit.
| |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/12/2008 11:28:29 AM | Okay, I'd like to apologise. I had no intention of getting into a debate over personal understandings as to the nature and validity of compassion. If anything, it was a simple call to please stop with ad hominem attacks and to focus on the issues at hand, while respecting each other as intelligent people with a right to their own viewpoints. At the very least, I'm certain that we can all agree that insincere compassion is worse than useless, and we have to address one another in a respectful, accepting manner if we have any hope of educating each other as to our respective viewpoints and the salient facts of the debate.
The idea was to get away from sophistry and personal issues, in order to evaluate the debate for the deception it truly is, and the film's contribution to that deception. I had hoped that we could acknowledge that we all tend to get caught up in the terms and minutiae of the discussion and miss out on the fact that, while we are all getting mired in the deceptive framework of the debate, there are legitimate victims whose unawareness of the particulars of the truth is keeping them ignorant and manipulating them toward the ends chosen by those who perpetuate and promote the debate.
In the last few posts, mine own included, I've seen that we tend to lose sight of the specific, important points and wind up either pursuing a discussion that's not technically relevant (religious beliefs of specific scientists, personal definitions of terms, etc.). And I'm convinced that, while this is a symptom of conversational discussion in general, as applied to the present discussion, it is also a by-product of the muddied thinking that is fostered by promoters of the "controversy", like the makers of Expelled.
I have to admit that I am thinking "fuzzily", myself, so I propose we list our own issues with the "debate".
1. Evolutionary theory is scientific. While the attempt to discredit this is a fundamental component of some formulations of the Intelligent Design argument, the fact remains.
2. Science is methodological, not ideological. If this needs to be explained, we're in serious trouble.
3. Intelligent Design is not scientific. Functionally and definitionally, this has been shown through repeated uses of logic in more venues than I care to count. The fact stands.
4. Intelligent Design is not necessarily untrue. Science says nothing about the truth or falsity of anything it does not or cannot address. The proposition of an empirically unverifiable "outside intelligence" operating on our universe is outside the realm that science addresses.
5. People are allowed to believe what they want to believe. No one is arguing this point here. If a person chooses to accept Creationism, Intelligent Design, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, evolutionary theory, or some other choice as their personal understanding for the phenomenological existence of the universe, biological diversity, etc., that is up to them.
6. Believing something doesn't make it true or untrue.
7. Belief alone does not make a viewpoint scientific.
These (above) are the baseline facts, truths, what-have-yous of the debate. Each one is demonstrably accurate, as are a number of those below.
8. Intelligent Design is ideological in foundation, if not formulation. The historical roots and many of the arguments of the viewpoint derive directly from Creation Science and Creationism. It is, in essence, a genericised version of these earlier, overtly ideological viewpoints.
9. The ID argument, while fundamentally ideologically based, is argued to be scientific, ostensibly as a ploy to inject ideology into the national discourse (in general) and science classrooms (in particular).
10. Having failed (repeatedly) to convince scientific, legal, and educational authorities of the spurious validity of ID as science, the focus has shifted from legitimising the hypothesis to operating as though it were already legitimised, and is now only being criticised for its opposition to other ideologies, specifically evolutionary theory and science (See point #2).
11. Expelled, the movie in question, operates on this premise: that evolutionary theory is ideologically based (a lie), that it is seriously threatened by a legitimate rival theory in ID (a lie), that it directly promotes evil in such forms as eugenics, slavery, genocide, etc. (a lie), and that several people have lost their jobs or received reprimand for questioning evolutionary theory or alluding to ID as potentially valid (a lie).
The point is that, while yes, the film makers are lying and manipulating their audience into believing that ID is scientific, it has been logically proven to be otherwise. The manipulation of the audience is what is at issue, in my opinion. Ideologically based deception and subversion are the true tactics in play, here, ironically the very tools of the exemplified "bad guys" in the film.
My issue is that those who buy into this kind of duplicitous marketing are not bad people in themselves, but misguided, misled, duped into perpetuating the fallacy. Legitimate concern for their education and intellectual welfare strikes me as compassionate. Call me kooky. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/12/2008 3:48:19 PM | K, here we go again...
Thids will be the last post on this thread which will go on about compassion as it is kinda off topic... However, compassion is something I am very passionate about and feel a need to explain since without compassion you are an agent of war.
I cannot see a difference. If I feel sorry for someone, it is because I have put myself in their position. If I don't put myself in their position, that is when I think that any person would not allow themselves to be in that situation, so that is when I imagine that their situation was something they chose, and I don't feel sorry for them.
So if you were in the other persons position you would feel sorry for yourself? When I see someone in pain, I see a part of me which is suffering... I don't feel sorry for them any more than I'd feel sorry for a bleeding finger... I'd do what I can to help because it is a part of me I am helping... That's the difference... To feel sorry for someone is to play the "Us and Them" game... To have compassion is to see there is no "them" only "us".
Yup. But does that mean that it is not possible for a scientist to be well-regarded by the public and by the others in his field, and still be like that?
It doesn't matter what their personal feelings are... It is their job and that of their peers to see if a cure or a theory is viable within our current understanding.
This quality is called empathy. From what I have been told by people, including therapists, it's rarer than gold and diamonds, and very few people are very empathetic.
I've heard and seen differently... Empathy is gaining alot of ground with the boost in information sharing... Sorry if you don't see it, but if you look you will.
I haven't looked at it, but I'm sure that you wouldn't have picked it, if it had any possible relevance. But that doesn't make it any more or less true. How do you know that a couple of pots and pans and a hotdog won't cure cancer? Do you have a credible reason? Or do you reject it out of hand?
I've already dealt with this one... You really should read what I'm saying before you jump to off base conclusions.
You need SOME basis to make a claim. But you don't need a theory to make a claim, and a theory will NOT mean that a claim is any more credible. You need to use logic, not experiments, to prove something. Experiments provide data. But it is logic, that transforms that data into something credible. However, logic does NOT rely on theories. Logic relies upon cold, hard deduction.
Yeah, ok... Logic will not prove something is a cure or prove a theory on how life was formed... Logic will only take you so far... You need to be able to show how it works... You can't just say it's possible so it works... You need experimentation and comparitive study... Logic will not provide that.
There's no compassion in self-dishonesty. There is every compassion in being dishonest with others. When your friend is crying because his girlfriend left him, because he cheated on her, he knows what he did wrong. He just needs a shoulder to cry on. He doesn't need someone to tell him the truth right then.
You misunderstand what compassion is... There is no compassion in being dishonest with someone... You are assuming they can't handle a truth you know so you hide it from them... Your friend may not need to hear the truth right then, but a lie sure as heck isn't going to do him any good... The best you can hope for with a lie is that the truth is held off for a bit... You can do that by being silent too, ya know.
The only way to put yourself in his position is to be honest with yourself, to admit ALL of your weaknesses. That is what makes it so hard to be compassionate.
You have to admit all your weaknesses in order to put yourself in someones place? I disagree, but then why not freely admit your weaknesses anyways? It's not like we all don't have them... It's quite easy to be compassionate... All you have to do is try.
I doubt this. A correlation is the exact opposite of a theory.
A theory without corelation is nothing but an uneducated guess... How can you claim to have a cure for cancer when there is no corelation between the cancer and the method of curing it?
Actually, simple coincidence is the definition of correlation.
Put it this way... simple coincidence maybe should be looked into so nothing is missed but you can't say you've found a cure for cancer just because of a coincidence... You have to do experiments to prove it or you are a quack and wasting our time and money.
I'm going to skip some of your post because it's just way too off topic and we aren't here to discuss whether or not it's ok to disagree.
If you think your truth is objective, then think again. That doesn't mean that you are objective. That means that you haven't really seen it from the other person's side.
What truth? I.D.? I've seen it from their side before I actually studied it... I may not know the truth, but I.D. ain't it... Unless the beginnings of life totally contradict the cycle of life which is highly doubtful.
What percentage of science is dogmatic?
I've given you the definition of dogma already... Some scientists can be dogmatic (and they would be unscientific scientists) , but science can not be or it would not be science... Why can't you grasp that?
You are talking about the Utopia that Bacon hoped for.
Bacon talks about Utopia? Is that because it's always getting fried? What the heck are you on about now? Kevin Bacon from Footloose? Is Utopia a school dance?
If the evidence doesn't seem to go in line with the theory, which do we disregard, the evidence or the theory?
If the evidence is proven to work and it goes against the current theory, the current theory is tossed... That's the way it goes... To believe in I.D. after it has been proven to go against evolution (which is proven) then it is I.D. that gets thrown out, not evolution.
So here is another question, how much bias is actually present in any officially recognised scientific experiment in the West, as an expectation, mean average? We can include all the labs that get published in the famous scientific journals. We can just check each experiment, consider any possible alternatives, and see which alternatives were missed.
Look... All I'm saying is that you can't say something is proven when it isn't and expect to be taken seriously... When an alternative has been shown to fall short of being correct, it should be put aside.
This COULD be a question of belief. I am not 100% sure. But in my experience, online and offline, I'm very inclined to say there is a substantial bias, enough that would mean we would need a new mechanism to keep it out, that the current method of peer-review would not eliminate in substantial quantities. Are you willing to see my POV, that I think this issue needs a double-blind trial?
We have a mechanism to keep out things that have been proven not to work... It's called the scientifc method... It isn't only peer review, it either works or it doesn't... A double blind trial? Sure! Any more than that tho is taking valuable time away from other alternatives.
I agree that in Utopia, or in the mind of an AI, where emotions do not cloud the mind, if something cannot stand up to rational argument, it is not going to be considered scientific.
What? No, no... We are living in the here and now and if something casnnot stand up to rational argument it will not be considered science... Go ahead and give me one example that is accepted by the scientific community which cannot take being examined under scutiny.
Are you seruiously going to tell me that scientists have managed to stop emotions affecting their cognitive processes?
That's why we have more than one scientist on hand... But really, no scientist will be taken seriously by other scientists if they can't back up a claim they've made.
If you can explain to me, by what psychological mechanism, that science is miraculously free of the effects that psychology predict about people, such as "self-invalidation", I would really love to hear that one.
Easy... Science has no psychology... Only people do... Scientific method itself will keep the emotions of the scientists at bay... If one or two slip by that use their emotions to screw around with actual findings, they are fired and what's funnier, they claim wrongful dismissal.
Ultimately, the methods employed by scientists worked best when they were fighting the establishment, because the inevitable conflicts polished their research, to a fine point. But once science became popular and commercialised, it fell prey to the same problems that anything popular and commercial suffers from. It's why so many people don't like bands that go commercial and switch to popular music. It tends to be of a much lower quality.
Horse hockey! The fact that pseudo science like I.D. is not being funded by the scientific community despite efforts by some is proof that science hasn't sold out.
I.D. has no business in the realm of science... It depends on lies and has no proof or even any hint of compelling evidence.
It just doesn't fly. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/13/2008 10:21:48 AM |
If the evidence doesn't seem to go in line with the theory, which do we disregard, the evidence or the theory? If the evidence is proven to work and it goes against the current theory, the current theory is tossed... That's the way it goes... To believe in I.D. after it has been proven to go against evolution (which is proven) then it is I.D. that gets thrown out, not evolution.
Beyond that minor point, I have to say that I'm impressed with the reasoning regarding ID and evolution evinced in the most recent posts. One has to notice, however, that while the human fallibility of emotional attachment to a postulate is invoked as an apparent drawback to the current understanding of evolutionary theory (as is implicitly shown in the premise of the film and explicitly underscored in the greater ID movement), it is neglected mention and actively ignored with regard to the blatant ideology informing ID as a postulate; the very quality that underpins all of its shortcomings as a potential scientific hypothesis.
It is my assertion that what we are witnessing here is a symptom of the manipulative nature of this "debate" over ID v. evolution. While the terms are set and standardised, and ID ostensibly fails to be remotely scientific in itself, the framing of the conflict as a clash between evolutionary theory and ID, between science and religion, between atheistic persecutors and the faithful, is a deceitful ruse to drum up support from the uninformed for a discredited and invalid argument. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/13/2008 1:26:10 PM |
I didn't read everything, but I thought Einstein thought monotheism was naive.
Actually, Einstein though all religions were childish superstitions.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080513122249.m3ds3b6j&show_article=1
Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.
The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.
As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.
The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.
In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.
"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."
And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.
Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP. | |
|
| Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted: 5/13/2008 4:05:46 PM | That depends on whether or not you consider Buddhism a religion... He had alot of respect for Buddhism.
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in the cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogma and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."
--Einstein.
"If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it would be Buddhism"
--Einstein.
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 
