Posted on 04/29/2008 10:20:32 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Postmodernism At Work
The following two statements are parts of comments made on the Free Republic forum in response to Pamela Hewitt's "Problems of Evolution."
"Nothing in Science is ever “proven”, just provisionally accepted pending further data." (—allmendream)
All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved! (—Coyoteman)
Normally, I would not bother with such mindless statements, but they just happen to perfectly exemplify the post-modernist nonsense that is being taught in today's colleges and universities. It is why we are living in the age of gullibility. Do not suppose this is just ignorance, however. These things are being taught with a purpose. The idea is, if you convince people nothing is ever certain, proved, or absolute, you can then put over just anything and call it science.
If "nothing in science is ever proven:"
I must assume these two have "living wills" specifying that cardioversion or defibrillation is not to be used on them since the principle of using electricity to convert a fibrillaing heart to a sinus rhythm has never been proved.
I am going to feel very sorry for these two if they ever need an operation, since the efficacy of anesthesia (once a great scientific controversy) has never been proved.
And they must really be missing out on all those television programs and phone calls transmitted by satellites launched into orbit around the earth's equator at a distance of about 22,300 miles which maintain a stationary position over the earth, by maintaining an orbital speed of approximately 6000 miles per hour, because, according to them, the physical principles such satellites are based on have never been proved.
They must only use electricity if it does not come from nuclear power plants, since the scientific principles describing a sustained chain nuclear reaction have never been proved. (Maybe they use no electricity at all, since they are sure the theory of combustion and Ohm's law have never been proved either.)
Nor must they use computers, or any other electronic devices that would not and could not work if the theories of electronics and quantum mechanics they are based on were not proved. They must avoid all Sky Scrapers because the laws of physics which are the basis of their engineering from the materials used to the structural design would fail if those physical principles were mere unproven hypotheses which, according to them, they are.
I do not know what planet these two live on, but on this planet the principle of an electric current being generated simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire discovered by Michael Faraday, who was considered a charlatan by his contemporaries, has been proved. The unbelieved assertions by Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi that wireless communication is possible, has been proved.
What kind of demented mind can insist that nothing in science has been proved? One that assumes things without evidence, based on nothing more than the fact someone does not accept their particular faith. Here is the evidence (a concept totally foreign to such second-hand minds).
"Being a nurse doesn't QUALIFY one, in and of itself, to make an academic argument on Evolution or Genetics. ... Nothing better than an educated layman."
The fact that the "nurse" happens to be a degreed geneticist who has both worked in the field and lectured in it as well, these dimwits did not bother to discover. Evidence is not something they care about, since their cherished faith is being threatened by objective questions their little minds are incapable of answering.
They are dripping with hubris and patent snobbery, exactly like those "scientists" who were publishing papers proving heavier-than-air human flight was impossible while two laymen, who were obviously not educated well enough to learn what they were doing was "scientifically" impossible, were too busy flying to notice. According to these two jokers, the possibility of heavier-than-air human flight has never been proved. They're still waiting for, "further data."
If you believe nothing in science has been proved, it makes it easy to swallow totally made up stories such as the following:
"Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years;" [From Rutgers University]
What's the difference between "unequivocally established" and "proved?" In normal English, even as spoken by scientists, there is no difference; but these story tellers can always say they never said it was "proved" we all came from a common ancestor. It's meant to deceive and gain unquestioned acceptance.
And it's pure fiction. There is no way such a thing could possibly be established. If evolution could happen once, there is nothing in reason or evidence that even suggests it could not happen more than once or even hundreds or thousands of times; but it's happening more than once would not fit their story, so just ignore that fact and present your story as, "unequivocally established," and all the gullible academics will swallow it whole.
Are you telling me that someone who claims all of the eduction you claim can't come up with something less 'in-your-face' than this: "Your “medical professional” (i.e. a nurse) who is a “degreed geneticist” (what pray tell is her degree? And what is her degree in?) is nothing better than an ILL educated layman." Particularly when the party you are putting down is not present to defend herself against your definitely un-scientific assumption ("and is obviously vague about her credentials for good reason”? "), which is substantiated by nothing that I have seen on this thread.
Neithr is the word "dog" -- but, if I were you, I'd be careful who I pinned that label on, and how you worded it when you do. What the hell would you call it, the way you used it. How nice do I have to be when dismissing incorrect and nonsensical tripe?
What compels you to be so rude about it. And, why do you feel compelled to even remark on it at all, if you aren't in the mood be civil about it?
Are you telling me that someone who claims all of the eduction you claim can't come up with something less 'in-your-face' than this: "Your “medical professional” (i.e. a nurse) who is a “degreed geneticist” (what pray tell is her degree? And what is her degree in?) is nothing better than an ILL educated layman." Particularly when the party you are putting down is not present to defend herself against your definitely un-scientific assumption ("and is obviously vague about her credentials for good reason”? "), which is substantiated by nothing that I have seen on this thread.
Neithr is the word "dog" -- but, if I were you, I'd be careful who I pinned that label on, and how you worded it when you do. What the hell would you call it, the way you used it. How nice do I have to be when dismissing incorrect and nonsensical tripe?
What compels you to be so rude about it. And, why do you feel compelled to even remark on it at all, if you aren't in the mood be civil about it?
You came on saying I was arrogant rude and a clod. Now you seek to lecture me on manners.
I have nothing against a layman expounding upon Science. I would have great respect for someone who said “My undergrad degree in Biology was a long time ago (or I have no formal training in Biology) but as I see it....A, B, C, and D and therefore I propose E.” IF they were essentially correct about A, B, C, and D. I might try to tell them they took a “train too far” on E if I thought so; but I would respect them for knowing the subject and conveying it accurately.
When someone says they are “a medical professional, with a background in genetic research” and then says “A, B, C and D and therefore I propose E” how polite do I have to be when I tell them that they are wrong over the entire alphabet and E is nonsensical?
The author promulgated a pack of utter nonsense in an attempt to attack a well formulated Scientific theory, she was incorrect on almost everything she said, and was trying to make herself sound more qualified than she is. I am sorry if you think it is rude to point this out; but there it is.
"Interesting to find an Aristotelianism here. However, the premise is incorrect, so the conclusion is neither correct nor incorrect. Science is built on the error of Cartesianism, the error being in not using reason to locate the limits of knowledge."
I prob'ly won't have time these days to do more than lurk, but the thought would be nice.
Cheers!
By definition, the same as the units of whatever quantity you're trying to measure.
See also "significant digits"...
(Unless you are referring to a layman's or a philosopher's definition of "uncertainty", and not an engineer's or scientist's. A lot of problems are caused by using a word as a layperson which has a specialized meaning within a particular discipline, or vice versa.)
Cheers!
They have but many have been banned or self-exiled.
No cheers, unfortunately.
I suspect that the geneticist's definition of mutation differs from that of the layperson...
Cheers!
I'll join you in the beer but not the other conclusions.
RightWhale,
Like, *PING*, dude.
Cheers!
Why did you post to yourself?
Is it the latest 'postmodernist' craze? ;-)
Cheers!
Is this the "scientist" version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? ;-)
Cheers!
al baby, you might have competition.
Cheers!
Leave the Vista vs. Mac flamewars out of this! ;-)
(Intelligent design is tricky to get a handle on until you know both the design parameters -- whether externally or self-imposed, *and* the stated goals and preferences of the designer. And in the case of "crevo" design, if you are including Judeo-Christian creation, you have to allow for the presence of non-corporeal saboteurs and some degree of autonomy on the part of the subjects involved. As if the biology alone weren't tanged enough.)
Cheers! Cheers!
Scary, I could detect echoes of both John Donne *and* Hillaire Belloc in that statement...
Cheers!
Man cannot achieve certain knowledge by the scientific method.
Man cannot achieve certain knowledge by divine revelation, or there wouldn't be over 4,300 world religions.
LOLOL!
Mr. Allmendream (what a revealing name choice !)
the first stage of Ms. Hewitts research masters, the proof that the aro-9 gene of N.crassa had been cloned into a lambda vector was published in Molecular and General Genetics, a peer reviewed publication.
What was your topic of research in your Masters?
What have you published?
I have news for you. Women get married, and change their names. And not all Net names are private ones. Or did you publish as Mr. Allmendream?
How many publications do you have?
How many years lecturing?
At which University?
On what topic?
And you have the gall to say she is an “ill educated layman”.
Incidentally, you are also commiting the logical fallacy of ad hominen.
One so highly educated as yourself will understand this, I’m sure.
No,grey whiskers
I’ts the result of being tired, not checking the format on a forum I rarely use (directing response to a name isn’t common).
If I thought I was in any way post-modern, I’d shoot myself.
Or dumb enough to accept a load of hogwash without ever questioning it !!! :)
And this is just what occurred to me.
If Ms. Hewitt is an ill educated layman whose opinions aren’t worth bothering with, why bother to reply at all?
It’s as I said, it’s a religious steam that gets generated. And thats a worry. Or would be, if I cared.
I appreciate reading your reasoned and calm comments. They do come as a breath of fresh air.
thankyou.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.