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

Final-Fan on 20 September 2009
appolose said:
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.

*headdesk*

Rath's scenario, where math/science allow for the laws of physics to be different ONLY AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the universe, does not constitute contradiction (or, as I believe you said, mathematical counter-observation of science's observation) of the laws of physics being constant outside of that time period.   

Also, what exactly do you mean by "well-established observation"?  



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! 

Around the Network
appolose on 20 September 2009
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:

... 

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.

*headdesk*

Rath's scenario, where math/science allow for the laws of physics to be different ONLY AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the universe, does not constitute contradiction (or, as I believe you said, mathematical counter-observation of science's observation) of the laws of physics being constant outside of that time period.   

Also, what exactly do you mean by "well-established observation"?  

I mean that Rath's scenario is another observation; this is true, yes?  We haven't always thought they the laws of physics were different at the beginning of time, right?  In my scenario, this is a place where that observation has not yet been made.

By well-established, I mean that it has been observed so much that an empiricist would say "Ok, that is definitely true".



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
Final-Fan on 20 September 2009
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:

... 

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.

*headdesk*

Rath's scenario, where math/science allow for the laws of physics to be different ONLY AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the universe, does not constitute contradiction (or, as I believe you said, mathematical counter-observation of science's observation) of the laws of physics being constant outside of that time period.   

Also, what exactly do you mean by "well-established observation"?  

I mean that Rath's scenario is another observation; this is true, yes?  We haven't always thought they the laws of physics were different at the beginning of time, right?  In my scenario, this is a place where that observation has not yet been made.

By well-established, I mean that it has been observed so much that an empiricist would say "Ok, that is definitely true".

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.  If we hadn't ever made that inference and made an attempt to reconcile it with known science, a mathematician still could have played around and come up with the possibility, right?  And if the math checked out, they would have to accept the possibility, and probably go looking for some clue IRL to see if it showed up.  

I mean, the creation of the universe has always been a big question mark for science, so I don't think there was a time when scientists were completely ruling out possibilities for what was going on at that point.  



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
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:

*headdesk*

Rath's scenario, where math/science allow for the laws of physics to be different ONLY AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the universe, does not constitute contradiction (or, as I believe you said, mathematical counter-observation of science's observation) of the laws of physics being constant outside of that time period.   

Also, what exactly do you mean by "well-established observation"?  

I mean that Rath's scenario is another observation; this is true, yes?  We haven't always thought they the laws of physics were different at the beginning of time, right?  In my scenario, this is a place where that observation has not yet been made.

By well-established, I mean that it has been observed so much that an empiricist would say "Ok, that is definitely true".

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.  If we hadn't ever made that inference and made an attempt to reconcile it with known science, a mathematician still could have played around and come up with the possibility, right?  And if the math checked out, they would have to accept the possibility, and probably go looking for some clue IRL to see if it showed up.  

I mean, the creation of the universe has always been a big question mark for science, so I don't think there was a time when scientists were completely ruling out possibilities for what was going on at that point.  

I don't think mathematicians would come up with this by themselves.  I'm fairly sure that they came up with this only as a result of recent scientific observations.

In any event, we could just pretend we're in a universe where the math doesn't work.



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
Final-Fan on 20 September 2009
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:

*headdesk*

Rath's scenario, where math/science allow for the laws of physics to be different ONLY AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the universe, does not constitute contradiction (or, as I believe you said, mathematical counter-observation of science's observation) of the laws of physics being constant outside of that time period.   

Also, what exactly do you mean by "well-established observation"?  

I mean that Rath's scenario is another observation; this is true, yes?  We haven't always thought they the laws of physics were different at the beginning of time, right?  In my scenario, this is a place where that observation has not yet been made.

By well-established, I mean that it has been observed so much that an empiricist would say "Ok, that is definitely true".

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.  If we hadn't ever made that inference and made an attempt to reconcile it with known science, a mathematician still could have played around and come up with the possibility, right?  And if the math checked out, they would have to accept the possibility, and probably go looking for some clue IRL to see if it showed up.  

I mean, the creation of the universe has always been a big question mark for science, so I don't think there was a time when scientists were completely ruling out possibilities for what was going on at that point.  

I don't think mathematicians would come up with this by themselves.  I'm fairly sure that they came up with this only as a result of recent scientific observations.

In any event, we could just pretend we're in a universe where the math doesn't work.

I'm sure they did, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually gotten around to it anyway.  I'm convinced you underestimate the amount of 'pure' research among mathematicians that only finds a real-life application once development is underway. 

I'm not sure what the point of you last sentence is.  You could equally just pretend that you agree with me. 



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! 

Around the Network
appolose on 20 September 2009
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.  If we hadn't ever made that inference and made an attempt to reconcile it with known science, a mathematician still could have played around and come up with the possibility, right?  And if the math checked out, they would have to accept the possibility, and probably go looking for some clue IRL to see if it showed up.  

I mean, the creation of the universe has always been a big question mark for science, so I don't think there was a time when scientists were completely ruling out possibilities for what was going on at that point.  

I don't think mathematicians would come up with this by themselves.  I'm fairly sure that they came up with this only as a result of recent scientific observations.

In any event, we could just pretend we're in a universe where the math doesn't work.

I'm sure they did, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually gotten around to it anyway.  I'm convinced you underestimate the amount of 'pure' research among mathematicians that only finds a real-life application once development is underway. 

I'm not sure what the point of you last sentence is.  You could equally just pretend that you agree with me. 

I'm not so sure; in any event, I suppose neither one of us can say what the case is.

I'm saying, in the last part, that if the math didn't work to demonstrate the possibility, then we would be left with 2 contradictory observations, yes?

Wanna bet on the length of this discussion?  :P



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
Rath on 20 September 2009
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.  If we hadn't ever made that inference and made an attempt to reconcile it with known science, a mathematician still could have played around and come up with the possibility, right?  And if the math checked out, they would have to accept the possibility, and probably go looking for some clue IRL to see if it showed up.  

I mean, the creation of the universe has always been a big question mark for science, so I don't think there was a time when scientists were completely ruling out possibilities for what was going on at that point.  

I don't think mathematicians would come up with this by themselves.  I'm fairly sure that they came up with this only as a result of recent scientific observations.

In any event, we could just pretend we're in a universe where the math doesn't work.

I'm sure they did, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually gotten around to it anyway.  I'm convinced you underestimate the amount of 'pure' research among mathematicians that only finds a real-life application once development is underway. 

I'm not sure what the point of you last sentence is.  You could equally just pretend that you agree with me. 

I'm not so sure; in any event, I suppose neither one of us can say what the case is.

I'm saying, in the last part, that if the math didn't work to demonstrate the possibility, then we would be left with 2 contradictory observations, yes?

Wanna bet on the length of this discussion?  :P

The math did work (and has been done) so can you come up with a situation that would actually meet the criteria I stated earlier?

I don't think there are any which don't violate the laws of logic.



appolose on 20 September 2009
Rath said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.  If we hadn't ever made that inference and made an attempt to reconcile it with known science, a mathematician still could have played around and come up with the possibility, right?  And if the math checked out, they would have to accept the possibility, and probably go looking for some clue IRL to see if it showed up.  

I mean, the creation of the universe has always been a big question mark for science, so I don't think there was a time when scientists were completely ruling out possibilities for what was going on at that point.  

I don't think mathematicians would come up with this by themselves.  I'm fairly sure that they came up with this only as a result of recent scientific observations.

In any event, we could just pretend we're in a universe where the math doesn't work.

I'm sure they did, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually gotten around to it anyway.  I'm convinced you underestimate the amount of 'pure' research among mathematicians that only finds a real-life application once development is underway. 

I'm not sure what the point of you last sentence is.  You could equally just pretend that you agree with me. 

I'm not so sure; in any event, I suppose neither one of us can say what the case is.

I'm saying, in the last part, that if the math didn't work to demonstrate the possibility, then we would be left with 2 contradictory observations, yes?

Wanna bet on the length of this discussion?  :P

The math did work (and has been done) so can you come up with a situation that would actually meet the criteria I stated earlier?

I don't think there are any which don't violate the laws of logic.

Whether or not it did or does is not the issue.  "If it didn't" is what I'm saying (you did say it didn't have to be real observation)



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
Final-Fan on 20 September 2009

[edit:  never mind for now]



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
Final-Fan said:
^ I think he meant the observation didn't have to exist but did have to be possible in this universe.

Besides, how can there even be a universe in which math doesn't work the same? It's math.


If that is the condition, then it misses the point of trying to determine whether or not the methods of science can result in a supernatural conclusion.  Going to an alternate universe isn't going to change science.

I didn't mean math not working in general, I meant it not working to show a change of the laws of physics at the beginning of the universe.

 



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