Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
"Science obviously embodies assumptions, but the question is whether working science requires formal philosophy, and the answer is no."
Ok. I see. Maybe YOU can help with a helpful link which elaborates a bit more on that 'no'? And, maybe also a link which discusses why so many irrational folks out there, maybe like me, are susceptible to believing the answer is indeed yes. I mean, I have asked this before, if 'science' was so robust, why do so few embrace its central themes, despite the fire hose of data thrown at them?
As Barbie might say, the central themes in science involve math, and math is hard.
How many people are capable of clearly defining relativity? quantum theory?
I have been participating in these threads for several years and have yet to see an evolution critic who could give a clear summary of how evolution works.
Else why would we be continuously be bombarded with demands for examples of individuals creatures giving birth to offspring of a new species.
This is just pure, gut wrenching ignorance of the subject being debated.
Than I think you butted into the conversation without knowing what it was about. Trace backwards to the point in this conversation to where you responded to what I was saying to someone else about philosophical naturalism.
Natural inquiry was around before Thales invented philosophy, and will still be around after the last philosopher retires from his cushy appointment to state-run and paid-for institutions of higher learning. Such folk naturally think philosophy "underlies" things. Folks who work for a living should be more skeptical.
Got it, trust it, I'm there. It just stands alone, sort of like Kant's first imperative. It is just 'there'. Like the sky being blue....
Quite so, other than for that Kant business about the ding un zich. The sky will continue to be blue, and chairs will maintain their ineffable chairlike essence, and curious people will continue to look into natural phenomenon, even in the absence of philosophers--as incredible as that may seem at first glance.
It's a curious sort of philosophy that insists on holding reality hostage to itself. "I am unable to construct a coherent philosophy that satisfactorily accounts for X; therefore, X does not exist." As though the universe is somehow accountable to the philosopher.
I guess you find it boring to be asked to back up your claims. In "I'm a devout Christian" world presumably it's enough just to have an emotional feeling that your beliefs are true. No need for any evidence.
So, for the rest of us who like some evidence when extraordinary allegations are made, when are you going to produce some backup about early evolutionary theorists leaping at evolutionary theory because they liked its sexual and moral implications? Or did you just make that claim up?
I am speaking to the implications, my dear friend, and this is something which evolutionists routinely ignore. Teach a kid that they have evolved from apes, and you are surprised when they go shooting at school.
And, even if this new fabricated claim of yours were true, it would have exactly what to do with whether evolution is true or false? Your argument is the worst kind of special pleading against an idea because you dislike its perceived emotional implications. This is a conservative forum, where we decide by reason, not emotion.
Guess again.
I'm still trying for abrasive rudeness. Obviously the temperate politeness of the majority of creationist posters here has rubbed off on me.
Btw, I would suggest you at least link to the items you are referring to.
You already supplied the link, two posts ago, to TH. I guess all that mind-blowing Christian sex has affected your memory.
You do realize that a post made over 'a year ago' CLEARLY has made quite the impression upon you....
That post is the most unintentionally funny post-hoc rationalisation I've ever seen. I still smile at the Joycean stream of non-sequiturs every time I think about it. You've given me a great deal of pleasure, as well as your wife.
I think that bodes very very well for you ... still.
The enjoyment I get from dissecting the assorted non-arguments against evolution in these threads is about the only reason I stick around here. That and to show the lurkers that not every internet conservative has lost their marbles.
I am speaking to the implications
Nearly every scientist, and every official body that represents scientists would DENY that science holds to a position of philosophical naturalism, many would argue that such an attitude would be antithetical to a scientific viewpoint: it articulates an assumption inherently un-bolstered by critically vetted data. Science does not imply philosophical naturalism, any more than criminal forensics implies that every human is a criminal.
Avowed deep religeous conviction is denser in prison populations than it is in the general population. Perhaps we should ask the anabaptists, the gnostics, cathars, witches, templers or islamic occupiers of the holy lands what they think of the theory that christians represent a higher order of ethical restraint. Hard to see why I should bother to behave decently when I can just seek salvation thru christ once I've grown tired of sinning.
Aside from being balderdish, this has little to do with whether evolutionary theory is true or not.
I'm really getting bored of this thread now.
I'm not surprised.
Indeed...
I didn't expect you to actually have anything to back up your claim. Thanks for living up to your reputation! :)
Indeed...
This response re-enforces my impression that you don't generally understand these arguments well enough to contribute to them meaningfully. Kindly address further inquiries to someone else--I don't wish to provide you with further excuses to enundate threads with reams of pointless biblical quotes.
As for the Huxley business, I suppose by pinging that one thread, I stand guilty of endorsing the whole thing again, but Ive discussed the errors of it in the past, and I cannot verify those exact quotes by Huxley.
DLR in the post I reply to here:
Im sorry; Im not sure who gave you the mistaken idea that I am on any hook of yours at all. And as far as I know, there has not been any confrontation on the Huxley quote prior to this engagement.
DLR, I've commented on the extreme nature of your memory problems before. You should seek help, and avoid posting on internet discussion forums like FR that are the province of reasoning adults.
Awesome takedown. Mine was rather easier. ;)
I would say the whole debate boils down to this one piece of honesty. It's a political debate about social morality disguised as a debate over science.
2300!
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.