Huckabee and Evolution

[Specfiction]

We watched last night as Gov Huckabee won the GOP caucus in Iowa. Although I am not a Republican, I understand the Gov's populist appeal after eight long years of a Bush administration punctuated by gross incompetence, lies, fraud, corruption, and assorted criminal activity. At thesame time as the caucus, the National Academy of Science came out with strong support of Evolution as the corner-stone of modern biology, and gave a strong appeal that only Evolution should be taught in science classes. It is on the record that Gov Huckabee does not believe in Evolution and believes the Earthis some six-thousand years old.

Deep exhale. I will not defend Evolution in this piece. Iwill not give evidence that the Earth is about four billion years old--and anyone who doubts this can consult any legitimate set of science books. If you don't believe in science, you can stop reading now. Also, I'm not impugning the Gov's right to believe what he wants--he has that right. By all appearances, Gov Huckabee is a fine man. The problem is that we have (I think) a secular society that believes in an objective reality that is characterized by scientific logic and methodology. All of our modern technology is based on science. The end ofthe dark ages was the beginning of modern scientific methodology. Choosing to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in matters of physical reality demonstrates a personality flaw that we cannot afford in the Oval Office of the United States. We have staggering problems facing us as a people. Just as you would not go to a witch doctor if you had cancer, or an astrologer to tell you where to put your money, we must have someone in the Oval office that understands that there is an objective reality apart from emotional convictions. We have climate change, environment, energy, and many, many other problems that require an objective, clear understanding of the world. We must stop voting for people on the basis of personal bribes (taxes), or whether we'd like to have a beer with the person we're voting for. I've enjoyed beers with many people who have absolutely no business in the White House. If we don't start electing professional, clear thinking, honest people to high offices, we will have no one else to blame but ourselves for the world our kids inherit.

[RedGlitter]

I personally see no problem with Huck's beliefs as long as they pertain to him and don't leak onto me. I also don't believe in evolution but would certainly hate for someone to be ignorant enough to judge me based on my private beliefs.

[Specfiction]

RedGlitter;753293 wrote: I personally see no problem with Huck's beliefs as long as they pertain to him and don't leak onto me. I also don't believe in evolution but would certainly hate for someone to be ignorant enough to judge me based on my private beliefs.


You're not running for President. A personal belief that the world is flat, in my opinion, should give people pause in putting such a person in the Oval Office. Such a person could be a fine person, but not qualified to make the enormous decisions that a president must make. I may be a fine person, but you would not want me to remove a tumor from your body if I weren't a skilled surgeon. There are some things in life that are not a matter of opinion.

[RedGlitter]

I disagree with you completely.Even though I am not an evolutionist, if I thought one were going to make a good president he or she would get my vote. Comparing flatworlders with creationists is apples and oranges and does your theory a disservice.

[Sheryl]

I don't think there will every be a "perfect" person to elect into office. There will always be someone who doesn't agree with the person's agenda, morals, ideas, personal beliefs, ect. So I don't understand the need to attack a nominee because there personal beliefs are not up to your par.

[Specfiction]

It's not that someone who believes in Evolution is an "Evolutionist," it's that someone who doesn't believe in Evolution doesn't believe in science. You can't choose not to believe in gravity. Gravity and Evolution are on the same scientific footing. This is a problem with our educational system in the US. Even the Pope, in Rome, has stated that Evolution is science and should be believed by Catholics. This makes no difference, of course, since science is true (to within known errors) no matter what a non-scientific authority declares--but the Pope's statement is good evidence that the church has learned their lesson from when the church declared that the world was flat in the middle ages, contrary to good scientific evidence.

It is not what you believe, it is the way you process information to come to a conclusion. The National Academy of Sciences, the cornerstone of science in this country, came out with a statement today promoting the teaching of Evolution, not creationism, in science classes in the US, and confirming the fact that Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Anyone who does not recognize this does not understand what science is, and in my opinion, is not qualified to be President.

A President cannot choose not to believe something in light of good, scientific vetted evidence by professionals. When you put someone in the oval office who thinks like this, you get what we have right now. Reality is not a matter of opinion.

[Sheryl]

Well I don't think scientist have invented a totally realistic looking human robot yet, so I guess you'll have to wait a while longer for your perfect president. :p

[RedGlitter]

Well, I've just proved your theory mistaken as I accept science as made by God. When you try to contain people into "either-or" camps like these it just doesn't always work. I am less troubled by Huckabee's creationist beliefs than I am by Guiliani's infidelity. That speaks more for a person's character in my opinion.

[Lon]

I could never vote for anyone that believes the earth to be only 6,000 years old. That goes for a FLATLANDER as well. I don't even wish to associate with them. Such flawed thinking carries over to other things in my view.

[Specfiction]

Well I don't think scientist have invented a totally realistic looking human robot yet, so I guess you'll have to wait a while longer for your perfect president.


That's very good--made me smile. I'm not trying to dis anyone here. Like Huckabee, I'm sure we're all fine people. The point is we have real problems in our world and in our country. We need the best we have to make these critical decisions that, if made badly, will guarantee much suffering in the future. We need learned scholars and intellectuals--the best minds we can find who are also honest with us and love this country. We may disagree on our favorite color, or movie, but we can't disagree that the Sun is the center of the solar system. Bottom line, Socrates knew that democracy could not work without a "well" educated public to vote for the most knowledgeable, honest people. It's clear that we need a much better education system in this country. BTW, Ron Paul said one of the first things he would do is get rid of the Dept of Education--I don't think this country can take much more of this and not slip into third-world status.

[Sheryl]

Specfiction;753320 wrote: That's very good--made me smile. I'm not trying to dis anyone here. Like Huckabee, I'm sure we're all fine people. The point is we have real problems in our world and in our country. We need the best we have to make these critical decisions that, if made badly, will guarantee much suffering in the future. We need learned scholars and intellectuals--the best minds we can find who are also honest with us and love this country. We may disagree on our favorite color, or movie, but we can't disagree that the Sun is the center of the solar system. Bottom line, Socrates knew that democracy could not work without a "well" educated public to vote for the most knowledgeable, honest people. It's clear that we need a much better education system in this country. BTW, Ron Paul said one of the first things he would do is get rid of the Dept of Education--I don't think this country can take much more of this and not slip into third-world status.


I understand what your saying, but none of the candidates qualify then in my opinion. Do you think any of them qualify by your standards?

[Specfiction]

I've disqualified two on the basis of the inept statements they've made. The one I personally like the most is John Edwards. But that's a matter of personal taste. BTW, I also like Barrack Obama.

And it's not that I have really high standards, it's that I'm not willing to vote for someone who is obviously unqualified. Just like if you needed an operation, you might not have the best surgeon, but you want one that at least has a medical license. I think I'm for candidates taking a standardized test to determine whether they're fit. This test would include history, economics, and science. Anyone who failed--do not pass go. I'm really tired of dumb, dishonest people in charge of America.

[Sheryl]

The only one I care for, has no chance in hell.

I've gotta go back and reread who else you disqualified, ahh it's the one I'm actually for. I actually agree with his views on education.

[Specfiction]

Education in this country is a mess--no argument there. But education must meet minimal national standards, the way it does in Europe and Japan. This can only be determined by testing--like your surgeon needs to take a test before he/she can operate on you. Much of what is wrong with school in the US can be summed up as follows: poorly educated parents who don't pass on the value of education, parent non-participation, disciplinary problems in class, really crappy school boards elected by poorly educated voter (see Dover Pen), teacher's unions, poor pay for teachers, teachers not having a degree in the subject they're teaching. We can have a community free for all, as Ron Paul wants--result: rich well-educated communities better education; poor undereducated communities--not so much.

Look, this isn't brain surgery. All we have to do is look at Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. They all do it far better than we do. This is what I mean, we need people making decisions that are scholars that know and understand world standards. What we have are shooting from the hip folk--not so good.

[Specfiction]

rjwould;753332 wrote: If you were to interview a person for a job where you work, would you hire them based on what they believe or how qualified they are for the position? George W. Bush is a CEO (and a bad one at that), but we don't need business people as presidents, we need professional politicians to serve in political positions. Governor Huckabee is a Baptist minister, not a politician. He was on Meet the press last sunday and Tim Russert picked him apart, and Russert is easy.

As for the Evolution question; anyone in my view who has looked at the evidence has to acknowledge evolution as truth, and I'm no scientist.


G W Bush was a C student who would never have gone to those Ivy-league places if his daddy weren't filthy rich. How do you get into Harvard MBA with a C average and 1100 on the SATs--answer, you don't. None of his businesses were ever successful--even given loans he didn't have to repay. He sent others to war, but wouldn't go himself, etc, etc. We need better people than this. As a country we voted for this guy twice--we have to stop doing this.

[Sheryl]

I agree that there should be better teachers, better pay, and national standards. But I think these tests should cover what is taught during the school year. And not the kids taught the test the whole school year. This just stresses the kids and teachers out. The kids are stressed due to the fact that if they don't pass the test they don't move up a grade, and the teacher's jobs are on the line if their class fails at the test. Here's a link to the Texas standardized tests.

[Specfiction]

Sheryl;753340 wrote: I agree that there should be better teachers, better pay, and national standards. But I think these tests should cover what is taught during the school year. And not the kids taught the test the whole school year. This just stresses the kids and teachers out. The kids are stressed due to the fact that if they don't pass the test they don't move up a grade, and the teacher's jobs are on the line if their class fails at the test. Here's a link to the Texas standardized tests.


Many of the things you say are true. Like cars in various model years, improvements are made in an intelligent way. We should refine the process after fixing some of the biggest problems that I've pointed out. It is a national project that will take years, if not decades to fix. But, what we don't need is someone throwing out minimal national standards and instituting a system based on education in the Oklahoma territories circa 1890. While we're asleep in the dark ages, other first world countries are moving forward. We will find it harder and harder to compete as we fall farther behind. Ask anyone trying to hire highly educated people--they're looking to other countries for professional employees. No one coming out of a first class educational system would even think of not characterizing Evolution as the cornerstone of modern biology. That this is happening in the US should alarm us all.

[Accountable]

Specfiction;753306 wrote: It's not that someone who believes in Evolution is an "Evolutionist," it's that someone who doesn't believe in Evolution doesn't believe in science. You can't choose not to believe in gravity. Gravity and Evolution are on the same scientific footing.
It's the LAW of Gravity.



It's the THEORY of Evolution.



Not quite the same thing.



Teach evolution in science class and creationism in religion class, and make sure both are taught as THEORIES.

[grh]

Specfiction;753325 wrote: I've disqualified two on the basis of the inept statements they've made. The one I personally like the most is John Edwards. But that's a matter of personal taste. BTW, I also like Barrack Obama.

And it's not that I have really high standards, it's that I'm not willing to vote for someone who is obviously unqualified. Just like if you needed an operation, you might not have the best surgeon, but you want one that at least has a medical license. I think I'm for candidates taking a standardized test to determine whether they're fit. This test would include history, economics, and science. Anyone who failed--do not pass go. I'm really tired of dumb, dishonest people in charge of America.


How many planets are there in our solar system?

There is no such animal as an absolute.... there is simply the truth as we know it at this moment in time, apparently!

[Specfiction]

Accountable;753446 wrote: It's the LAW of Gravity.



It's the THEORY of Evolution.



Not quite the same thing.



Teach evolution in science class and creationism in religion class, and make sure both are taught as THEORIES.


Sorry, Gravity is a theory. The theory of General Relativity is the most complete description of gravity. I hate to break it to you, but all in science are theories in their most complete description. These theories are well understood and make factual predictions whose errors can be calculated. One of the big problems with science is that the general public, due to our poor education system, are not taught what science is. Science is a process by which knowledge is gained. The so-called laws of science are a collection of very elegant theories, backed-up by large bodies of good evidence that are always under scrutiny. We always mix up rhetoric and reality. Quantum mechanics tells us that we can never know something completely. Descriptions of reality that are portrayed as absolute are wrong by construction. Today the National Academy of Sciences, the most authoritative scientific body in the US, put out a paper stating that the theory of Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, and only Evolution should be taught in science classes.

We must also make a distinction between arbitrary categories like Planets, and fundamental theories like gravity and evolution. One is arbitrary (what is a planet), the other is not.

[Galbally]

As a scientific person I would generally feel pretty similar to the original posters view, and I know that although "Creationism" can in the losest possible sense be considered a "theory" in the same way that Darwin's ideas about natural selection is a theory or Special Relativity is a"theory". The major difference is that both evolution and special relativity are based on an objective and agreed reality, and are in accordance with all of the physical evidence available at present, and can be used to explain in a logical and reductive manner why things are the way they are. Creationism is not based on any objective evidence, but on the belief that the Christian bible is all literal fact, thats not a theory, thats a religiously inspired belief system.

This becomes immediatley apparent when you point out that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was developed from the observation of what actually happens in nature, the evidence was collected, studied, considered and the theory developed based on that evidence. Darwin didn't start with the theory of evolution he developed it based on decades of careful observation of real habitats and ecosystems across the planet, and others were also on the same track at the time. As was the theory of continental drift, the working out of genetics and inheritance, the science of geology, and other sciences that deal with the age of the earth and how life works.

However, in Creationism you start with the conclusion, which is that God made the Earth magically in 7 days, and that happened six thousand years ago (based on the calculation of Bishop Berkley in the 19th century who added up all the people in the bible by age, brilliant!), then you attempt to find some facts that support this belief. Of course the facts don't fit that idea, so the facts are twisted, or some bizarre religious explanation is made for the annoying existence of fossils from 150,000,000 years ago (for example). If this doesn't work then you set about discrediting the basic methodology, people, and technology involved in the scientific arguments. Again, this is not equivalent to a scientific debate, its a strict Church vs Science debate wrapped up to look more sophisticated than that, thats what really annoys me.

I mean, 6,000 years is just not rational, we have cities that are probably older than that, there are archeological sites in Ireland that date from 4,500 BC, thats 6,500 years ago, and that's just buildings, never mind fossils, glaciers, mountains, erosion, climate, etc etc. We can see stars and galaxies that are billions of light years away, which means that it has taken that long for the light to reach us, and we are essentially looking at them as they were billions of years ago, so how does that work? The only way one could rationalize believing in creationism is to ignore or disbelieve all of the material physical evidence we have, and if you can ignore reality to that extent then why believe in anything rational? You basically have to take apart the entire scientific explanation for reality to even start having any serious belief in creationism, its that far out, it really is.

Therefore Creationism and Evolution are not equally valid scientific theories. One is a scientific theory that has stood up to all detailed enquiry and is able to explain and predict all of the diversity of life and the way in which natural selection is able to create such complexity from such simple building blocks. The other is a religious opinion and has no basis in material fact whatsoever. They are not, and can never be equally valid, thats sophistry and pretty disengenuous. For example a scientist in the States recently agitated to have his belief in the creation of the Earth by the Spaggetti Monster and the Holy Pasta a valid theory to teach Children, based on the fact that he believed it, and therefore he had every right to teach it as his beliefs are sacrosant despite all the rational material evidence indicating such a belief was somewhat misguided, the point was well made.

I would say that America is a democracy and the legitimacy of any president is based on their gaining a popular mandate (i.e. enough votes), not on their private beliefs, and if people are concerned about the views of any politicians on these issues they don't have to vote for them. If I had to give my opinion honestly though I would be frankly worried that someone could attain such high office while holding such odd views about reality, but then perhaps that just represents the current retreat into smug mysticism that seems all the rage among conservative American Christians. Again, unfortunatly, if enough people in the States believe in "creationism" then a creationist President is simply being represetative of the general irredentist idiocy, which is why Christian groups are going all out to make sure that Children are indoctrinated in the fundamentalist Christian view of reality.

In the Ireland of the past most of the public school system was run by the Catholic Church as they knew that if they were able to get into children's heads when they were 5 or 6 they would have them forever, fortunatly we have moved away from being "The only Theocracy west of Tehran", whereas some in the US seem to want to go in that direction, I would advise against it. Secularism has its downsides undoubtedly, but its far better than all the alternatives, like democracy itself.

[Accountable]

To the layman gravity is law and is taught as such. Scientists can get more esoteric as they ned to.



You're right, Gal. "Creationism and Evolution are not equally valid scientific theories." That's why I suggested the scientific theory be taught in science class the the religios theory be taught in religion class.

[Galbally]

Accountable;753518 wrote: To the layman gravity is law and is taught as such. Scientists can get more esoteric as they ned to.



You're right, Gal. "Creationism and Evolution are not equally valid scientific theories." That's why I suggested the scientific theory be taught in science class the the religios theory be taught in religion class.


Its an interesting thing gravity, undoubtedly the general human experience of gravity is such that Newton's theories regarding it can be taken as de facto "laws", however, Einstein's Special and General Relativity papers revealed that Newton's law's do break down in certain circumstances, and also its become apparent that Einstein's laws also break down in extreme conditions such as in a black hole or also at the moment of the big bang (which is because of Quantum Mechanics, which might seem esoteric but is actually the most successful scientific theory ever devised), so the complete picture has not been attained yet and it may never be attained. Which, of course, is why science is so interesting.

[Galbally]

Accountable;753518 wrote: To the layman gravity is law and is taught as such. Scientists can get more esoteric as they ned to.



You're right, Gal. "Creationism and Evolution are not equally valid scientific theories." That's why I suggested the scientific theory be taught in science class the the religios theory be taught in religion class.


I think thats an arguable compromise, then of course in religion class it might be valid to explain that even among Christian churches (never mind other religions) creationism is not held as being universally valid, as the Catholic Church (for example) now accepts the scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to some extent, though the biblical story of creation is taught as a parable or whatever. Then of course your getting into what specific theological doctrine your school board advocates, and thats a whole new can of worms as it won't be too long before your arguing about how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin.

[Specfiction]

The important point is this: something is not real simply because we believe it is; and what is real can be known only to within calculable errors. I once taught a lab class. We spent the whole time (to many people's dismay) calculating errors on measured data. Science is only as good as the calculation of error on measured data. And science is as close to (objective) truth as we can get--nothing else even comes close. On the other hand, there are subjective truths, many of them personal, that , to us, are every bit as important--as they should be. A quality education teaches us not to mix these up.

[Galbally]

Specfiction;753830 wrote: The important point is this: something is not real simply because we believe it is; and what is real can be known only to within calculable errors. I once taught a lab class. We spent the whole time (to many people's dismay) calculating errors on measured data. Science is only as good as the calculation of error on measured data. And science is as close to (objective) truth as we can get--nothing else even comes close. On the other hand, there are subjective truths, many of them personal, that , to us, are every bit as important--as they should be. A quality education teaches us not to mix these up.


I understand your despair at this nonsense if you are a science teacher.

[Specfiction]

Most reasonable people don't like to get into silly, nonsensical discussions. So many knowledgeable people stand by the side-lines and hope this stuff (Creationism) goes away--it is so obviously ridiculous. But it hasn't gone away, unfortunately. It is now creeping into school science classes. This country (US) can not permit this bus back to the seventh century to continue. And it (the US electorate) certainly cannot elect a President that believes this rubbish.

[Specfiction]

rjwould;753873 wrote: That is exactly why I start threads on religion. It's my view that the only way out of this mess is through it. The discussion has to be had, it will get messy and difficult, but it must be had. It's my opinion that this is the last great push by the religious fundamentalists and they are going at it full force, especially on the internet. They have to be confronted....


You know, I wish you were right about the "last push." I don't believe it is. I believe that anthropomorphizing the world is in human nature. If you look around the world, religion is the norm, not the exception. We've talked about electing a president that believes in creationism--it would be not hard but impossible for an atheist to be president, even though many founders like Thomas Jefferson were. We will always have religion, and that's okay. But what's not okay, as you point out, is substituting superstition for reality. History has shown us that such civilizations are only viable at a very low level. Look around the world today at religious fundamentalist societies.

[RedGlitter]

Specfiction;753868 wrote: Most reasonable people don't like to get into silly, nonsensical discussions. So many knowledgeable people stand by the side-lines and hope this stuff (Creationism) goes away--it is so obviously ridiculous. But it hasn't gone away, unfortunately. It is now creeping into school science classes. This country (US) can not permit this bus back to the seventh century to continue. And it (the US electorate) certainly cannot elect a President that believes this rubbish.


Just because I'm curious, are you against the Christian theory of Creationism only or do you consider all religious theory to be "rubbish?"

[yaaarrrgg]

Jester;754152 wrote: 'Science', is now a religion, it used to be a method of understanding the natural laws of the universe and beyond, but now it is twisted to suit the humanistic philosophies to deny God for the most part. And that is the point of the argument.


This is a bit confused but a popular claim. Science is compatible with the belief in god. So is evolution. Many great scientists (like Newton and Einstein) where theists, or deists of sorts.

Science is not like a religion, in that it simply operates by comparing two theories and selecting the simplest explanation. The problem with supernatural explanations -- and why they are not considered "science" -- is that they raise more questions than they answer.

[Galbally]

yaaarrrgg;754841 wrote: This is a bit confused but a popular claim. Science is compatible with the belief in god. So is evolution. Many great scientists (like Newton and Einstein) where theists, or deists of sorts.

Science is not like a religion, in that it simply operates by comparing two theories and selecting the simplest explanation. The problem with supernatural explanations -- and why they are not considered "science" -- is that they raise more questions than they answer.


I can certainly agree with that, in that being a scientist by no means automatically makes anyone an atheist, though most would find it very difficult to accept hard line theological stances on many issues, as thats the nature of most people who are scientific in their outlook principally in that they are pre-disposed to not just accept things without any material or rational evidence, whatever the religious or philosophical question is. This is the fault line between those who are basically religious or mystical in their worldview and those who are scientific, that will never change as far as I can see.

[Specfiction]

Science and religion are fundamentally different. Science is a method of acquiring knowledge that depends on proof, controlled repeatability, documented confirmation by data, and error assessment. Religion is that which is accepted on faith. Faith is defined as "belief without proof." Science applies only to the natural, physical world--period. Many scientists and rationalist "believe" only that which is natural exists, whether or not it is known by man. For example, if a tree falls in the forest before there were people on earth, does it make a sound? (people have been around for much less than 1% of the time the earth's been around--a "fact" of carbon dating) Answer, "yes"--sound are pressure waves in the air whether someone hears them or not. Did the sun rise on earth before there were people around to see it? Answer, "yes." As long as the earth rotates about its axis and the around the sun, the sun will rise on earth whether there are people around to see it or not.

Something is not true simply because we have a "need" to believe it; it is true because that's the way it exists in nature whether we understand it or not. Man is not above nature, man is part of nature. When man asks where he came from, it's the same as asking where did nature come from. Because we don't know the (real physical) answer to a question, doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. And if we make up an answer to make ourselves feel better, it doesn't mean that answer is true. It's value is that it makes us feel better.

If you fall off a building, you will always fall down, not up, even though you might "believe" you will fall up. The next time you are in a plane, with 40,000 feet of air between you and the ground, you will stay aloft because people used verifiable rational, scientific reasoning to design the plane, not belief.

The most important thing in life is understanding, clearly exactly what it is you really "know."

[spot]

Trying to add weight to one position or another by applying terms like law or theory does nothing to resolve truth. Gravity, evolution and creationism are models, they're idealizations of truth. Where they cover the same territory they can be contradictory models which can't be reconciled with each other. None of them are true in anything other than ideological terms. They can be applied in more or less powerful ways to answer questions. Creationism may well be a more powerful model than evolution when applied to certain questions and vice versa. Gravitational equations are useful if you want to land an aircraft in fog, they have little to offer when interpreting particle scatter experiments.

Creationists feel that their model is a more useful school topic than one which offers an experimentally robust understanding of biological systems. They have their reasons. Awe of a supreme creator may perhaps make for more socially well-adjusted citizens than scientific literacy. The deadlock preventing that discussion is in the insistence that "you're wrong" as opposed to "that's less useful".

[Specfiction]

I couldn't disagree more. Objective reality (truth) is not arbitrary. Either the Earth is 6000 years old or it's not. Creationism is not a model, it is an unfounded belief. Creationism is inconsistent with the evidence that the natural world provides. Scientific based models are not models in the rhetorical sense, they are mathematical, validly logical constructions based on "proof" and validated by experiment. The problem with semantics is that it may sound good, but it is unfounded in "objective" reality. The dark-ages taught us this.

[spot]

I'm mildly surprised that you're so extremist. It should be obvious to you that an omnipotent God is capable of creating the planet you live on, complete with you, your memories, your surroundings and all the finicky fossils you could ever want to unearth, and that he could have done it last Tuesday at 1.37 PM GMT and that (He being omnipotent) you'd have no possible way of standing outside that creation and seeing the stitch marks. That's what omnipotence means and Occam's Razor doesn't do a lot to discount it. That the omnipotence of God is baloney is a belief, it's not subject to demonstration. Your opponents apparently believe it. Granted their initial single assumption all else follows, including Bishop Ussher's statement that the first day of Creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC.

The other half - that Scientific based models are not models in the rhetorical sense, they are mathematical, validly logical constructions based on "proof" and validated by experiment - is just as mistaken. They're approximations which both idealize and simplify truth.To the extent to which those simplifications provide investigative techniques and validated predictions, the model is useful. New ways of describing the truth overturn scientific pictures and provide new models. Consider the progress of describing the atom over the last century from Thomson, Rutherford and Chadwick to the current assortment of models. They're all scientific models, yes? What's on offer today is a set of mutually exclusive contradictory models, yes? I'm not using semantics, I'm describing the process.

[Galbally]

spot;758033 wrote: I'm mildly surprised that you're so extremist. It should be obvious to you that an omnipotent God is capable of creating the planet you live on, complete with you, your memories, your surroundings and all the finicky fossils you could ever want to unearth, and that he could have done it last Tuesday at 1.37 PM GMT and that (He being omnipotent) you'd have no possible way of standing outside that creation and seeing the stitch marks. That's what omnipotence means and Occam's Razor doesn't do a lot to discount it. That the omnipotence of God is baloney is a belief, it's not subject to demonstration. Your opponents apparently believe it. Granted their initial single assumption all else follows, including Bishop Ussher's statement that the first day of Creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC.

The other half - that Scientific based models are not models in the rhetorical sense, they are mathematical, validly logical constructions based on "proof" and validated by experiment - is just as mistaken. They're approximations which both idealize and simplify truth.To the extent to which those simplifications provide investigative techniques and validated predictions, the model is useful. New ways of describing the truth overturn scientific pictures and provide new models. Consider the progress of describing the atom over the last century from Thomson, Rutherford and Chadwick to the current assortment of models. They're all scientific models, yes? What's on offer today is a set of mutually exclusive contradictory models, yes? I'm not using semantics, I'm describing the process.


Your points are well made as always spot, and you are entirely right of course. However, this argument is one that goes back to the old one between Bishop Berkley and Dr Johnson in terms of the fundamental assumption (and if anyone makes any assumption that's about the only practical one) that the material reality that each (and apparently every) person experiences during their indivdual lifetimes, and the one that seems to have been recorded in stone, on books and all the other records of the past (distant and immeadiate) etc is the only useful agreed frame of reference by which any logical process of determining what exactly is going on at any one time can determine an agreed "truth".

Certainly in any organized system of intellectual though any other approach very quickly descends into a morass of conflicting relative viewpoints or endless regressions. This actually holds as much for religions as it does for the scientific method, though its not as clear in religions sometimes.

Now of course there are varying approaches to this fundamental assumption required to make any collective progress, but of course perhaps Bishop Berkley was right and when I die this entire creation around me will cease to exist, or perhaps God will get up tomorrow (he gets up early) and decide to switch the divine matrix off. If that happens then we have lost nothing (for the time being) by continuing to use the general assumption that the shared experience of material reality is valid and proceed from that basis.

[Galbally]

Just for those that don't know about this oldest of philosophical questions is that when the practical and somewhat outspoken Dr Johnson was told by his friend (it must have been Boswell) that the famous cleric (and mystic) Bishop Berkley (who was from Kilkenny) had put forth the proposition that all natural philosophy (as science was called then) was meaningless as he was sure that life was simply a "dream within a dream", the good doctor was heard to remark "I Refute it THUS!" kicked a large stone with his foot and promptly broke his toe.

[spot]

Galbally;758058 wrote: the good doctor was heard to remark "I Refute it THUS!" kicked a large stone with his foot and promptly broke his toe.


If only the good Doctor had exclaimed immediately afterwards "I think I've broken my toe!" he'd have produced the ideal summary of the entire debate and even the Bishop might have applauded.

[Specfiction]

The other half - that Scientific based models are not models in the rhetorical sense, they are mathematical, validly logical constructions based on "proof" and validated by experiment - is just as mistaken. They're approximations which both idealize and simplify truth.To the extent to which those simplifications provide investigative techniques and validated predictions, the model is useful. New ways of describing the truth overturn scientific pictures and provide new models. Consider the progress of describing the atom over the last century from Thomson, Rutherford and Chadwick to the current assortment of models. They're all scientific models, yes? What's on offer today is a set of mutually exclusive contradictory models, yes? I'm not using semantics, I'm describing the process.


These exchanges always go this way, don't they. The first thing to consider is the word proof. Scientific models are based and proven by data to within a well calculable error. Let's take the Thomson, Rutherford et al example. The force on electrons by an electric field is based (modeled) on the "measured" properties of charged particles and the measured behavior of electric fields. Given a charge with a kinematic trajectory through an electric field, the trajectory of the particle is calculated, it's not "assumed." If you are reading this message off a cathode-ray tube you are seeing a demonstration of this. Real science is not semantic or arbitrary, it is based on data, measurement, and experimental confirmation.

This "assumption" of omnipotence or Occam's Razor has nothing to do with science, these are just semantics. God or God's omnipotence is not measurable by data and not provable--it should not even appear in this conversation. The thing that makes science work is that scientific methodology must be applied to the physical world where data (proof), and experiment confirm the result of a (physical) model.

Nothing is taken on faith, and "ideas" like Gods omnipotence, which can't be measured or proved by data are irrelevant. Because, for example, relativity is a better model than Newtonian mechanics does not invalidate NM. Relativity is simply more general--but they're both proven by data and repeatable experimentation.

[spot]

Specfiction;758073 wrote: The thing that makes science work is that scientific methodology must be applied to the physical world where data (proof), and experiment confirm the result of a (physical) model. That's fine. You've walked away from "Objective reality (truth) is not arbitrary" to discussing models which is what I suggested. Nothing in science discusses "objective reality (truth)", it discusses observation. Your fundamentalist bigot also employs observation - he can see the sins and the divine interventions as plain as day. Neither the scientist nor the fundamentalist has access to the truth. The scientist doesn't claim that he has such access which is a mark in his favour. Were the fundamentalist to abandon his claim of unique infallible divinely-provided insight he'd not be a fundamentalist any longer. By all means let's go out and squash the buggers, they're messing up my real world and I don't like them at all.

[Specfiction]

Nothing in science discusses "objective reality (truth)", it discusses observation.


Repeatable physical measured observation IS objective reality. Example: If you step off the edge of a tall building, gravity (a proven scientific model) will pull you toward the center of the Earth before the electric fields between the atoms (another proven scientific model) in your body and ground stop your motion, and, by the way, kill you through structural disruption by the transfer of kinetic energy (still another proven scientific model). All models, all work very well, and the objective reality is that you'll be dead. You won't try this experiment because it's not arbitrary, it will work every time. This is not complicated. Things are more clear once you strip away the rhetoric.

As far as truth. We had a teeshirt at LBL, it said, "We give you the truth to two standard deviations." That is very accurate.

Bottom line: if we don't want more of the same in the US, we need someone in the White House who has a strong grasp of objective reality. Peoples' lives depend on it.

[spot]

We just need to sort out some vocabulary - I'd call what you're describing the subjective reality. What words would you use for the undiscovered underlying process that's being modelled?

[Specfiction]

I'd call that the underlying nature or reality--whether it is knowable in some absolute way is debatable--I suspect it is not. People don't have the required perception, we exist under very benign conditions. The robust processes of creation probably are best observed (experienced?) from a vantage that neither us nor our machines will ever be able to attain. Something like the sun, for example, is power on a scale that we can't even imagine, it gives life and motion to everything that we know, it will last for tens of billions of years (unimaginable time, we've been around for about 100,000 years), and yet it is very mundane by cosmic standards--we classify it a yellow dwarf. However, science, as we know it, is a good and true tool to intuit some of the qualities of raw reality, of which we are a part.

Objective reality: that which is the same for everyone and can be impartially tested. Examples: the earth is spherical, the sun is the center of the solar system, like electric charges attract, etc.

Subjective reality: that which is true for the individual. Your favorite color, your belief in a personal God, your love for someone, your favorite book, etc.

[Bryn Mawr]

Specfiction;758167 wrote: I'd call that the underlying nature or reality--whether it is knowable in some absolute way is debatable--I suspect it is not. People don't have the required perception, we exist under very benign conditions. The robust processes of creation probably are best observed (experienced?) from a vantage that neither us nor our machines will ever be able to attain. Something like the sun, for example, is power on a scale that we can't even imagine, it gives life and motion to everything that we know, it will last for tens of billions of years (unimaginable time, we've been around for about 100,000 years), and yet it is very mundane by cosmic standards--we classify it a yellow dwarf. However, science, as we know it, is a good and true tool to intuit some of the qualities of raw reality, of which we are a part.

Objective reality: that which is the same for everyone and can be impartially tested. Examples: the earth is spherical, the sun is the center of the solar system, like electric charges attract, etc.

Subjective reality: that which is true for the individual. Your favorite color, your belief in a personal God, your love for someone, your favorite book, etc.


Objective reality - I exist

Everything else is an interpretation of evidence.

Yes, science is a wonderful tool for sifting that evidence but all theories are built on underlying axiomatic principles that are unproven.

I would question whether any experience is the same for everyone and whether two observers of the same event ever record the same "objective reality".

[Specfiction]

I would question whether any experience is the same for everyone and whether two observers of the same event ever record the same "objective reality".


You're so wrong. Imagine this: 50 million miles and an N body problem of forces. Yet, with one course correction, and one initial burn, we can hit Mars from here--reliably. The next time you're at 40,000 feet and look down, imagine that we can do this all the time, day after week after month after year--and almost never crash, with hundreds of people on board. We could go on and on--nature rewards you when you're right, and when she rewards you, you've had a truly objective look at something real. Just as my example of a man falling off a high building, you can be made to no longer exist in very predictive ways. Your mind, through your senses is a relation to the objective world. Only people who have been pampered through technology would consider starving, or freezing, or not falling prey to predators some subjective manifestation. If we didn't have this technology, these abstractions would be clearly, objectively very real every moment of the day.