| Subject: Substance abuse |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/14/04 10:29pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Of substance" on 09/14/04 3:48pm
>
>I'm talking specifically about human evolution, not
>fossils in general. And my pointing out of the
>dismal track record regarding hominid fossils is quite
>legitimate grounds for me being skeptical.
It doesn't matter all that much with regards to how generally you are talking about fossils. Hominid fossils have had their fair share of mistakes, and you can bet that within dinonsaurs mistakes have been made and are being made.
The point is that because mistakes were made, and later rectified, it doesn't mean that that entire field is suddenly thrown into doubt.
By way of example, if your mom called you some other name than Wade, and didn't catch it until she had Alzheimer's and had a vivid long term memory, it doesn't suddenly cast doubt on your Wadeness.
I could surely hold my banner high and say "Wade's mom has had a dismal track record with Wade's name. Here are even other instances where she momentarily screwed up." but it doesn't mean anything about the fundamental truth that your name is Wade.
It's funny you only settle on hominid fossils also. Could it be that you throw out things that conflict with your worldview? (I can make veiled psychological suggestions too)
>
>In that case, "evolution did it" offers no explanatory
>power.
Except that evolution makes predictions that should be observable. Theism doesn't make any predictions. It only makes assertions.
>
>But that's not how I'm using theism here. I'm using
>theism to address philosophical issues, where science
>has no domain.
Philosophical issues about the fossil record? Philosophical issues about the way nature behaves or seems to behave when empirically observed? Those don't sound philosophical in nature to me. That sounds like science based questions, to which you are posing religious answers, which have no domain in science.
>True, but irrelevant. You've totally avoided my point.
No, I've answered it with another exmaple of why what you can imagine doesn't mean anything.
>That is not necessarily the case.
Yes it is. It's exactly the case. Randomness can produce things that seem orderly. That's a fact. Randomness is also capable of producing order, that's also another fact.
>
>>How do you know our current universe
>>isn't in such a state?
>
>Look, our universe behaves according to a set of
>sophisticated mathematical rules. Neither Ockham's
>razor nor any other rational principle suggests a
>larger portion of chaos by which the mathematical
>principles happen coincidently and that the consistent
>mathematical rules are just illusory.
You take mathematics to be the way reality is. I don't, neccessarily. Reality is what it is, and mathematics tries to describe it as best as it can. That doesn't mean mathematics confers its conventions on nature. It means we perceive order, which we then use mathematics to describe. Do not take the slave to be the master.
>
>Well, suppose we don't find any monkeys typing. We
>just find works of Shakespeare written elegantly on a
>page. All things being equal, wouldn't intelligent
>design (a writer) be the most natural and reasonable
>inference?
Being that we are human, and that we know humans produce writing, the most intuitive answer would be that some writer made it. The most intuitive answer is not always the right answer, however.
Suppose I obtain a supposedly randomized
>hard drive and find there's a cool video game on it
>with sophisticated mathematical algorithms. All
>things being equal, wouldn't an intelligent designer
>(a programmer) be the most natural and reasonable
>inference?
Again, because we are human, and we know humans make gaming programs, the most intuitive answer would be that a programmer made it. And again, the most intuitive answer is not always the right answer.
It's not that it's impossible for
>it to be otherwise, it's about the inference to the
>best explanation.
The most intuitive explanation is not always the best explanation. You seem to equate intuitive with best.
>>
>>But we don't "know" that this universe is in fact
>>intricately mathematically ordered.
>
>Take a high-level physics class. You'll learn that
>the universe contains a whole lot of sophisticated
>mathematical principles governing it.
Incorrect. I'll learn that the mathematics we use to describe what we think is reality concerning the universe contains sophisticated mathematical principles governing it. I'll also discover that there are just as many random processes that don't seem to follow any mathematical pattern. I haven't learned anything fundamentally about the reality of the universe itself, because it's inaccesible to me.
>
>So you now want to abandon the uniformity of nature, a
>crucial principle of science, because...why?
I'm not "abandoning it." I can say that to us, nature appears uniform. Yet, I can also admit, that though it appears orderly TO US that does not in fact mean that it IS. You confuse the two, and take the description to be the actual way it is. What reason have you to assume mathematics IS the way the universe actually is? I'll remind you that your senses are highly selective instruments that only take in partial data, and are inclined through millions of years of evolution to perceive order.
Why is
>it now okay to drag down science? Because it
>conflicts with your worldviews?
I didn't "drag down" science. I recognized science for what it is--a very handy tool, not the arbiter of reality.
>
>I would say the opposite, given the recent discoveries
>regarding the physical constants etc.
I don't think an inherently chaotic quantum state is very orderly, at least initially. Do you?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 