By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

Khuutra on 20 September 2009
appolose said:
@ Everyone calling for a point of "reasonable" assumption,
Sense data can fit any belief about reality; I could interpret this set of sense data, for instance, to be represent a computer, or I could take it to be The Matrix; there is no way to examine other sense data to determine which view is correct, as that sense data could be taken to mean anything as well. The scientific axiom that whatever we observe is real could still quite fit a Matrix view of reality; yes what we sense is a real computer simulation, so to draw the line there is to get you no further.

You can go ahead and assume or presuppose that your view on reality is correct if you'd like, but realize that such a view is on an equal footing with mine.

The idea goes that if we're in the Matrix, we have to assume the Matrix is reality until we are given reason to beelieve otherwise. That's the compromise we make with our senses. If we reject what we sense then we reject all reality, and that is an absurd notion if only bcause reality behaves in such a consistent way. If you don't do a certain st of things, you are going to die. That's real enough for most people.

If you are sure of your own thoughts, you must be sure of an apparatus of your thoughts, must you not? If you think, you musth ave a mind, and from there your mind must be housed in a place.



Around the Network
Final-Fan on 20 September 2009
appolose said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
Can you give me an example of such a contradictory observation (doesn't have to be a real example - just one which doesn't break the laws of logic and would cause either discarding science or accepting the supernatural).

Matter cannot be created physically, matter came into existence at some point.

That does not require the discarding of science or the supernatural. Rather it requires that the laws of physics we use are not eternal.

For one thing they are confined to our universe, for another in the earliest moments of the universe mathematical models show that the current laws of physics would not have held anyway. Where everything came from does require further study and explanation but it certainly doesn't require science to accept the supernatural.

So no, that example doesn't hold true for the requirements I gave you.

To assume that they are not constant would be contradictory to our pretended observation of them being constant.  In that instance would it be discarding the assumption of the trustworthiness of empiricism.

That's factually incorrect if the math works out as Rath said; empiricism can be trusted now, but it wasn't the same in the first picosecond (or whatever) of the universe.   



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

appolose on 20 September 2009
Khuutra said:
appolose said:
@ Everyone calling for a point of "reasonable" assumption,
Sense data can fit any belief about reality; I could interpret this set of sense data, for instance, to be represent a computer, or I could take it to be The Matrix; there is no way to examine other sense data to determine which view is correct, as that sense data could be taken to mean anything as well. The scientific axiom that whatever we observe is real could still quite fit a Matrix view of reality; yes what we sense is a real computer simulation, so to draw the line there is to get you no further.

You can go ahead and assume or presuppose that your view on reality is correct if you'd like, but realize that such a view is on an equal footing with mine.

The idea goes that if we're in the Matrix, we have to assume the Matrix is reality until we are given reason to beelieve otherwise. That's the compromise we make with our senses. If we reject what we sense then we reject all reality, and that is an absurd notion if only bcause reality behaves in such a consistent way. If you don't do a certain st of things, you are going to die. That's real enough for most people.

If you are sure of your own thoughts, you must be sure of an apparatus of your thoughts, must you not? If you think, you musth ave a mind, and from there your mind must be housed in a place.


Reailty cannot be derived form sense data.  I never said we reject what we sense, I said we cannot derive what (if anything) our sense data represents.

An apparatus of thought would have to be assumed.  I can't prove how my thought works in any way.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Khuutra on 20 September 2009
appolose said:
Khuutra said:

The idea goes that if we're in the Matrix, we have to assume the Matrix is reality until we are given reason to beelieve otherwise. That's the compromise we make with our senses. If we reject what we sense then we reject all reality, and that is an absurd notion if only bcause reality behaves in such a consistent way. If you don't do a certain st of things, you are going to die. That's real enough for most people.

If you are sure of your own thoughts, you must be sure of an apparatus of your thoughts, must you not? If you think, you musth ave a mind, and from there your mind must be housed in a place.

Reailty cannot be derived form sense data.  I never said we reject what we sense, I said we cannot derive what (if anything) our sense data represents.

An apparatus of thought would have to be assumed.  I can't prove how my thought works in any way.

Reality can be derived from sense data, and the majority of people agree on this point because it is all we have. not to say that our senses are not limited, but they are there, and everyone generally seems to interpret the same things in roughly the same way.

So.... you're not sure... that you have a mind.

Tell me something, then.

If you can't be sure of the sense data being fed to you, why are you participating in this conversation?



appolose on 20 September 2009
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
Can you give me an example of such a contradictory observation (doesn't have to be a real example - just one which doesn't break the laws of logic and would cause either discarding science or accepting the supernatural).

Matter cannot be created physically, matter came into existence at some point.

That does not require the discarding of science or the supernatural. Rather it requires that the laws of physics we use are not eternal.

For one thing they are confined to our universe, for another in the earliest moments of the universe mathematical models show that the current laws of physics would not have held anyway. Where everything came from does require further study and explanation but it certainly doesn't require science to accept the supernatural.

So no, that example doesn't hold true for the requirements I gave you.

To assume that they are not constant would be contradictory to our pretended observation of them being constant.  In that instance would it be discarding the assumption of the trustworthiness of empiricism.

That's factually incorrect if the math works out as Rath said; empiricism can be trusted now, but it wasn't the same in the first picosecond (or whatever) of the universe.   


This is a pretended* observation, apart from today's mathematical models.

In any event, empiricism does not attempt to find if every single instance in the universe conforms together.  Rather, it makes many observations, then extrapolates from that.

 

*possibly



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Around the Network
appolose on 20 September 2009
Khuutra said:
appolose said:
Khuutra said:

The idea goes that if we're in the Matrix, we have to assume the Matrix is reality until we are given reason to beelieve otherwise. That's the compromise we make with our senses. If we reject what we sense then we reject all reality, and that is an absurd notion if only bcause reality behaves in such a consistent way. If you don't do a certain st of things, you are going to die. That's real enough for most people.

If you are sure of your own thoughts, you must be sure of an apparatus of your thoughts, must you not? If you think, you musth ave a mind, and from there your mind must be housed in a place.

Reailty cannot be derived form sense data.  I never said we reject what we sense, I said we cannot derive what (if anything) our sense data represents.

An apparatus of thought would have to be assumed.  I can't prove how my thought works in any way.

Reality can be derived from sense data, and the majority of people agree on this point because it is all we have. not to say that our senses are not limited, but they are there, and everyone generally seems to interpret the same things in roughly the same way.

So.... you're not sure... that you have a mind.

Tell me something, then.

If you can't be sure of the sense data being fed to you, why are you participating in this conversation?


Using the majority's response on this issue is worthless; I have to assume they exist, too.  Reality cannot be derived from sense data, for sense data can fit anything.  Even if it was provable that other people existed, of what use would that be?  We all could still be wrong.

I never said I wasn't sure (I think I didn't, at least), I said it can't be proven.

I am perfectly sure of this conversation, though.  I'm referring back to epistemological knowledge in my debate with Finalfan.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Khuutra on 20 September 2009
appolose said:

Using the majority's response on this issue is worthless; I have to assume they exist, too.  Reality cannot be derived from sense data, for sense data can fit anything.  Even if it was provable that other people existed, of what use would that be?  We all could still be wrong.

I never said I wasn't sure (I think I didn't, at least), I said it can't be proven.

I am perfectly sure of this conversation, though.  I'm referring back to epistemological knowledge in my debate with Finalfan.

...No, you are not perfectly sure of this conversation, going by logic which has been presented prior to this post.



Final-Fan on 20 September 2009
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
Can you give me an example of such a contradictory observation (doesn't have to be a real example - just one which doesn't break the laws of logic and would cause either discarding science or accepting the supernatural).

Matter cannot be created physically, matter came into existence at some point.

That does not require the discarding of science or the supernatural. Rather it requires that the laws of physics we use are not eternal.

For one thing they are confined to our universe, for another in the earliest moments of the universe mathematical models show that the current laws of physics would not have held anyway. Where everything came from does require further study and explanation but it certainly doesn't require science to accept the supernatural.

So no, that example doesn't hold true for the requirements I gave you.

To assume that they are not constant would be contradictory to our pretended observation of them being constant.  In that instance would it be discarding the assumption of the trustworthiness of empiricism.

That's factually incorrect if the math works out as Rath said; empiricism can be trusted now, but it wasn't the same in the first picosecond (or whatever) of the universe.   

This is a pretended* observation, apart from today's mathematical models.

In any event, empiricism does not attempt to find if every single instance in the universe conforms together.  Rather, it makes many observations, then extrapolates from that.

*possibly

... 

Look, I thought your objection was about the fact that the beginning of the universe acted in violation of the laws of physics, so a person trying to be totally consistent HAD to discard science/accept supernatural interference.   

So Rath's counterargument was that math/science can ACCOUNT for the laws of physics being different at the very beginning of the universe but not today.  Not necessarily PROVE that it DID happen a particular way, but show that it was possible for it to happen in a way that is harmonious with known science.  (So a person can have a consistent view in that way without accepting supernatural interference.)

It seems to me that he was successful, and that you have yet to give an example like the one he asked for, and which you apparently thought you could provide.   



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

appolose on 20 September 2009
Khuutra said:
appolose said:

Using the majority's response on this issue is worthless; I have to assume they exist, too.  Reality cannot be derived from sense data, for sense data can fit anything.  Even if it was provable that other people existed, of what use would that be?  We all could still be wrong.

I never said I wasn't sure (I think I didn't, at least), I said it can't be proven.

I am perfectly sure of this conversation, though.  I'm referring back to epistemological knowledge in my debate with Finalfan.

...No, you are not perfectly sure of this conversation, going by logic which has been presented prior to this post.


My logic was that it could not be proven, which, I am positing, is different than being sure.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
appolose on 20 September 2009
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
Can you give me an example of such a contradictory observation (doesn't have to be a real example - just one which doesn't break the laws of logic and would cause either discarding science or accepting the supernatural).

Matter cannot be created physically, matter came into existence at some point.

That does not require the discarding of science or the supernatural. Rather it requires that the laws of physics we use are not eternal.

For one thing they are confined to our universe, for another in the earliest moments of the universe mathematical models show that the current laws of physics would not have held anyway. Where everything came from does require further study and explanation but it certainly doesn't require science to accept the supernatural.

So no, that example doesn't hold true for the requirements I gave you.

To assume that they are not constant would be contradictory to our pretended observation of them being constant.  In that instance would it be discarding the assumption of the trustworthiness of empiricism.

That's factually incorrect if the math works out as Rath said; empiricism can be trusted now, but it wasn't the same in the first picosecond (or whatever) of the universe.   

This is a pretended* observation, apart from today's mathematical models.

In any event, empiricism does not attempt to find if every single instance in the universe conforms together.  Rather, it makes many observations, then extrapolates from that.

*possibly

... 

Look, I thought your objection was about the fact that the beginning of the universe acted in violation of the laws of physics, so a person trying to be totally consistent HAD to discard science/accept supernatural interference.   

So Rath's counterargument was that math/science can ACCOUNT for the laws of physics being different at the very beginning of the universe but not today.  Not necessarily PROVE that it DID happen a particular way, but show that it was possible for it to happen in a way that is harmonious with known science.  (So a person can have a consistent view in that way without accepting supernatural interference.)

It seems to me that he was successful, and that you have yet to give an example like the one he asked for, and which you apparently thought you could provide.   

Again, we are talking about a pretended well-established observation (which, in this case, is that the laws of physics are constant).  If it is true that science and math can demonstrate counter-observations, than that would not be a well-established observation, which is what my hypothetical scenario requires.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz