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.
Uncertainty is a real number contained in the open interval (0,1). It has no units and in general is not a continuous function.
Re: "“Theory is simply the limit of an accurate representation, as the uncertainty appoaches zero.”
"Rubbish. The postmodernists have done their job well."
You're in danger of failing science class and not passing on to the 8th grade. I see summer school in your future, along with numerous visits to the principal's office.
I thought postmodernism began with the bronze age which replaced modern knapping.
Ph.D., 35+ years of experience, and I follow the scientific method.
I’m the defender science. You’re the one that says it cannot prove anything.
From my list of definitions (with a new addition for "proof" from a CalTech physics website):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain lawsTheory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. Source
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of ‘proof’ causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician’s meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law." Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of…" Source.
“Sorry but do you even know what “Post-modernism” means?
It is the idea that all viewpoints are equally valid.”
The idea the all viewpoints are equally valid is multiculturalism, and the source of that is cultural Marxism originating in the Franfurt School. Postmodernism includes a a wide variety of views in a number of fields, but the common thread in them all is anti-rational objective knowledge. It originated with the Positivists of vienna circle. Both multiculturalism and postmodernism can be traced back to Hume.
Postmodernists include:
Jacques Derrida
Deleuze
Foucault
Jean Baudrillard
Jürgen Habermas (who was also a cultural Marxist and a member of the Frankfurt school)
Richard Rorty
This is not the best reference, but an example of their anti-science views:
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/pomo.htm
“... the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples (Spiro 1996).”
Here are lots of good sources on Postmodernism and Science:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/postmodernism.html#Postmodernism
I’m not criticising you for your ignorance about postmodernism. It’s a specialist’s field and your view is commonly held.
Now, please do me the same favor.
“Your argument, as with most Creationists/’cdesign proponentists’”
Neither I or the writer of the original article are creationists or believe in intelligent design. From my own point of view, ID is absurd, primarily because if the life on this planet was designed, the designer ought to be ashamed of himself ...or herself.
You obviously did not read the article. There are some questions presented there that are very clear, but may be a little difficult for you. The case is not either for or against evolution, it is that evolutionists will never honestly and straightforwardly address or answer these questions. Instead, they usually do what you have done, attempt to attack a person, which certainly convinces me, it’s because you and they do not have any answers.
Hank
“Actually, you’d be surprised at home much we don’t know about the simple water molecule.”
You seem to be very certain about things, like what I’d be surprised at. How do you know that?
And how do you know how much we don’t know about the water molecule?
Think, man!
Hank
I’m sorry, I have no idea. I do not believe in ID. As I said early, if the life on this planet was designed, it’s a botched design. Who would design life where most of it existed by killing and eating each other.
So you think there’s still hope for the phlogiston hypothesis of combustion, heh? Or, that somewhere, sometime, someone will repeat Lavoisier’s experiment, and get different results. Are you well?
Hank
*sniff* *sniff* What’s that? OH! I know. It’s the smell of trolls! Seems some people only come here to post about one topic; Evolution/Creationism. Wonder if they actually have any conservative bent at all or are just agenda pushers...
Yup! That’s postmodernism.
Anything but objective reason.
Thanks!
Hank
“Arguing over the definitions as a method to discover some kind of larger truth is a waste of time.”
I agree. It’s why I have not addressed the definition—because every knows what it is. The debate here is really about objective certainty, not over the meaning of the word proof.
Hank
No no. I’m not interested in what kind of paper you have.
I mean, what have you done?
It’s really none of my business, just curious if you care to say.
Hank
Water's wet, you shouldn't breathe it, and you can't burn it. That's all you need to know, Hank. Now go back to sleep.
And how do you know how much we don’t know about the water molecule?
I don't. That's why I left the statement specifically unquantitated.
Speaking of a, “conservative bent,” I’ve noticed a distinct change in FR over the last year or two. When I first came here about 7 years ago, there were many long threads of discussion, much more conservative and mature than today.
My views are probably closest to those of Jefferson’s, than anyone else. Quite frankly I do not think Jefferson would feel comfortable on today’s FR—I don’t mean the forum itself, but the people who frequent it.
This is just an impression and wonder if others have noticed it.
Hank
Postmodernism supposes that there is no objective reality and that all viewpoints are therefore equally valid.
Science supposes that there is an objective reality and that Scientific theories can help explain and predict this reality.
“May be a little difficult for you”? Oh and I suppose that isn't a personal attack. It is laughable one considering the lack of intellectual heft your posts display, but it certainly is one. It betrays the weakness of your position which is ludicrous on its face due to your poor understanding of both Science and Postmodernism.
You are relatively new to this site, so perhaps some explanation may help.
This site used to be science-friendly at one time. It has since largely been taken over by fundamentalists who insist on interrupting science threads with witnessing or challenges to what elsewhere is considered mainstream, established science.
Most scientists left in disgust, some were banned.
I am one of the few of an old group still left defending science from religiously-oriented attacks.
That comes nowhere close to the definition of a troll. A troll's mission is to disrupt.
And as for conservatism, I remember when being a conservative didn't require a person to believe in one of the extremist, fundamentalist religions. You know, back when I voted for Reagan in four different elections.
I will happily debate Ms. Hewitt. Her article was full of factual error, logical error, and scientific anachronisms. Her “Hewitt Supposition” or whatever she called it, that species “have always existed as they are today”, but vary within species like the famous sooty moths is Lamarckian evolution. She suggests that species somehow adapt to their environment without proposing a competing mechanism to natural selection. It’s the old “Giraffes grow long necks because they stretch them to eat leaves argument that has already been discredited.
If I misread her horrible prose and she does believe in natural selection within species, but not across species, then she either doesn’t understand natural selection or the meaning of “species”.
She has the unbridled ego to throw out BOTH creationism AND evolution of species through natural selection, putting herself above God AND Darwin. Without either, her statement that the species have always existed as they do today, means the existed before the Earth existed. They were neither created, nor did they evolve from lower orders of chemicals. I own a credential verification company. Please let me have the name of the university, date of graduation, and name at time of graduation. If by some miracle she has a “Masters in Genetics”, I can verify it and also let the school know she doesn’t deserve it.
I mean, what have you done?
Very briefly--I have almost single-handedly filled in the details of over 8,000 years of prehistory for the area in which I work. This has required decades of research, and requires that I keep up with the latest scientific techniques so I can apply them to the research. The two I am spending the most time on now are radiocarbon dating and mtDNA analyses, but earlier I spent a lot of time with osteology and statistical analyses.
And it was Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis.
Congrats!
It just goes to show ya that the nail that stands up is the one that gets hammered.
;-))
No it isn't. You seem to be a little thin-skinned. Most people, even most scientists in other fields, are not familiar with transposons, or what point mutation, re-assortment, or recombination are or what their significance to evolution would be, for example.
I've observed that neither you are any of the other critics of this article have attempted to answer any of the technical genetic questions raised. I suspect it's because you do not understand them. Are you familiar with Barbara McClintock? "During the 1940s and 1950s, McClintock discovered transposition and used it to show how genes are responsible for turning physical characteristics on or off. She developed theories to explain the repression or expression of genetic information from one generation of maize plants to the next. Encountering skepticism of her research and its implications, she stopped publishing her data in 1953." Actually, the criticism came from "scientists" whose views her reseach threatened, and most did not understand the very technical nature of her research. She suffered terribly from this rejection. I think something, in a minor way, is going on here too. About Barbara: "Awards and recognition of her contributions to the field followed, including the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded to her in 1983 for the discovery of genetic transposition; she is the first and, thus far, only woman to receive an unshared Nobel Prize in that category." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintock Have a nice day! Hank
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.