Posted on 05/01/2008 9:58:37 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
I am in agreement that there is nothing as perplexing as an “evangelical” atheist.
It’s more than that, I think. I find the attitude in many atheist today toward Christians akin to the attiude in Germany toward Jews before the war. I think it’s a bit frightening.
I’m an atheist but the last thing I want to see happen in this country is its secularization like that of Europe. I think it is dangerous to take all of a person’s values away, even if the source of them is mistaken. You can at least reason with a person who believes in something, the people of Europe believe in nothing, and what you get is a society of subjectivist hedonists with no values and nothing to live for but the next immediate pleasure.
“prefer my own source”
The other is not “my source” because I distrust most statistics. Personally I don’t care about the numbers and the original point was that for most very serious scientisits, their religious position, whatever it might be, in my experience at least, is a separate issue from their science.
Thanks for interesting and reasonable comments, by the way.
Hank
Don’t agree with every bit of it, but it sure is spot on in many regards!
Especially the part of the insanely insecure that they find it necessary to hijack the courts to get their way, stomping and screaming all the way that God has no place in: science class, courts, government and anything else they don’t want to be inconvenienced with.
Churches? Well, that’s OK, for now.
Magnanimous of them.
There. Fixed it for you. You should know by now that science is a tentative business and that is does not deal in absolute certainty. That, to the discomfort of philosophers, does not exists in science.
You’re kidding right?
It’s snowing in Denver today, interstates are closed, but the algoreacle crowd say there’s simply no longer a debate...global warming sky is falling is hardly science!
Yet algore has an army of scientists proclaiming it so! AND just like the anti-ID crowd, there’s TO BE NO debate! EVER!
Additionally...take a medication, it’s all about concensus. Some doctors will prescribe medication A, others won’t. Based on many variables, often having NOTHING to do with science!
The one I cited seemed more applicable to what “Scientists” believe (those being faculty at elite Universities), and the other to what members of the National Academy of Sciences believe (high muckety-muck faculty at elite Universities).
Anyway I disagree with the premise that both hardcore atheists and hardcore “cdesign proponentists” attempt to promulgate that most/all Scientists are atheists. It just isn't the truth that has been polled, and it isn't the truth that I have experienced in my professional and academic life as a Scientist.
Sorry if things got heated on the other thread(s). I suppose I can come off as a condescending jerk sometimes, but I know what I know and I know what isn't so and it is hard for me to “suffer foolishness gladly” without having a bit of fun. I try to always AT LEAST be reasonable and interesting, if not always tactful or diplomatic. ;)
Diplomacy: The fine art of telling someone to “go to Hell” in such a way that they look forward to the journey.
I’m the last person you have to apologize to. Don’t be so worried about what people think of you. Of course, in light of your explanation, maybe you are just diplomatically telling me to go to hell. That’s OK too.
;>)
Hank
The exchange about the drugs reminds me of a conversation I had once with a neurologist about anti-depressants. The gist of it was that we know what anti-depressants do in the body, and we know that one of the effects of taking them in to relieve depression, but we don’t know what the connection is between the two. He agreed with me that “anti-depressant” was kind of an unfortunate name for them, because it implied a condition that carried a stigma—the person we were trying to convince to take them kept insisting she wasn’t depressed (and, in fact, that wasn’t what they were being prescribed for). I started calling them “neurotransmitter supplements” in order to remove the stigma.
(This was all a while back—they may know more now.)
Just wondering, since you don’t think its been proved that it is possible.
"Proof that something is possible?" You are correct, anything is possible. That is why scientific theories can't be 'proved.' They can only be demonstrated to our satisfaction or limits of our measuring ability.
Now on the other hand if there was a scientific theory that Man couldn't fly, then all it would take would be one man flying to disprove that theory. That is what falsifiable means and that is the basis of Scientific theory.
When I pick up a rock and drop it, does that 'prove' the Theory of Gravity? No, because all it would take is a single instance of the rock not falling and that would disprove gravity.
So my question to you is this. Has Newtons Theory of Gravity been proved?
Our society is suffering from another ailment: political correctness. It infests people across the board, a psychotic liberal phenomenon we’re all aware of; where people bend over backwards to not offend someone and often end up offending everyone.
Reminds me, I need to get one of those bumper stickers: “bitter clinger”!
Anyway, we’ve all been afflicted by it, guilty of it, but mostly victims of it.
Recently, (I’m a hospice nurse) a nervous old lady has her mother on hospice (Mom’s late 90’s, she’s late 70’s, early 80’s) and asked everyone on hospice what their sign is. I told he Aquarius, the SW hers, and she made the comment “everyone in hospice is so kind and they don’t get mad with me when I ask (about their horoscope), you know some people are really religious”.
So she’s afraid of offending, then does EXACTLY that!
That tickled me, I wanted to say lady I’m religious but it doesn’t offend me if you’re a satan worshipper, but of course...I could only laugh at and with her.
I agree global warming is not science, it isn't falsifiable. Even now they are saying that the climate may cool before it gets warmer again. There is no way to disprove AGW, it is the perfect rallying call for the environmentalists.
Lots of beliefs masquerade under the guise of science. If it isn't falsifiable it isn't science.
Usually, from what I remember, they target the enzyme that breaks down the “happy molecules” that your brain secretes; leading to the happy stuff persisting longer in the brain.
Our brains have an intricate punishment/reward system to keep us doing the actions that the brain thinks it likes, like eating chocolate - even if the ‘happy’ person eating that chocolate is already 300 lbs..
“Now on the other hand if there was a scientific theory that Man couldn’t fly, then all it would take would be one man flying to disprove that theory. That is what falsifiable means ...”
That may be what you mean, but the concept of falsifiablility in science comes from Karl Popper and peratains only to hypotheses or propositions and states they are only valid or scientific if they are falsifiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
That link, or a quick Google search of Karl Popper will expalin it all—but to save you time:
Falsefiability means, that for any proposition or hypothesis there must be some test that would prove the proposition or hypothesis false if it is false. Any proposition or hypothesis that cannot be proven false, if it is, is not a valid proposition or hypothesis—because otherwise just anything could be presented as the hypothetical explanation of anything—the fairies at the bottom of the garden did it, which a dear loved one frequently gives as an example, because you cannot prove that is false.
As you can see, this is the very opposite of your incorrect use of the concept. I’m not blaming or judging you. Karl Popper’s concept is misunderstood by most college professors, and most people are taught the wrong meaning of it.
As you can see, it’s real meaning is that a correct hypothesis is proveable. Here’s why. Since a valid proposition or hypothesis must have a test that will prove it false, if it is, if the test is made on such a hypothesis, if it fails to be proven false, then it must be true, and therefore, proven. Amazing, huh? If a test is made on a hypothesis it must fail if it is false, and it does not fail, it must be true, because if it were not, it would have failed.
Now I have to ask why you dodged the question. Everything can be put in a negative light, such as you did with heavier than air human flight. Of course any false hypothesis will be disproved by the proving of a true own. The possibility of heavier than air human flight was a great scientific debate right up to and beyond the first flights of the Wright Brothers. Since the possibility of heavier than air human flight is a fact, why won’t you admit that hypothesis is now a proven theory?
Do you think Ohms law has not been proved?
Do you think the nature of combustion as described by Lavoisier has not been proved?
Do you think the nature of the human circulatory system as described by William Harvey has not been proved?
It would take an entire encyclopedia just to name all the things that have been proved in science.
Your Humean skeptec teachers have done you a great disservice, I think.
Hank
“... the mechanism of action of these antidepressants is well known.”
There’s no argument about that. In fact they do know them, and know the very harmful things they do, and still use them.
What is not known, is any chemical or physical disorder of the brain that causes, so-called, psychological problems as “brain disease.” (Brain diseases there are aplenty, but they can be detected by physical examination and treated physiologically, if they can be teated at all. There are exceptions here too, such as Lewy Body dimentia which cannot be absolutely diagnosed except by autopsy, which is a bit late.)
“Our brains have an intricate punishment/reward system ...”
Yes, but it’s only at the physiological level. Psychologically it works emotionally, and is developed through learning and habituation...but that is philosophical and I know you have no use for that, so I’ll stop.
Hank
“Lots of beliefs masquerade under the guise of science. If it isn’t falsifiable it isn’t science.”
Yes, that’s the correct use. You seemed to have it mixed up before. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Hank
By the way, have you been following the discussion with LeGrande about falsifiability?
One reason I question the current evolutionary hypothesis is just that. What is the test that can be made to prove it false if it is false? That does not mean it is not true, only that it cannot technically be called science. Just questioning what you think about that.
Hank
“I couldn’t read this article without hearing Arte Johnson in my head”
You hear voices in your head? Interesting—but strange!
Hank
“You should know by now that science is a tentative business and that is does not deal in absolute certainty ...”
You’re absolutely certain about that?
Hank
Biology is not a 'hard' science like physics and that makes falsifying it more difficult. Experiments are often inconclusive so the best method seems to be obtaining direct evidence, fossil and DNA in particular.
The theory of a common origin of species is very falsifiable. DNA testing could easily have falsified that theory and yet it has verified it at every point. A species just appearing out of nowhere unrelated to any other species would invalidate it, etc. etc.
The simple theory that species have a common origin is falsifiable and has yet to be falsified. But and this is a big but, how the evolutionary system works may not be falsifiable. The theory of Natural Selection may not be falsifiable and this is where ID jumps in and says that GOD did it. ID doesn't seem to be falsifiable either.
So, we are left with two gaping holes. How did life originate and what is the controlling mechanism?
We have three basic life forms Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, & Viruses and no evidence at all to suggest how they spontaneously appeared. We do have strong evidence that all life on earth is based on those three forms.
That brings us to the big question. What is the controlling mechanism in a cell? When they discovered DNA they thought that was the answer, but evidence is mounting that DNA is nothing more than a templet repository that the cell uses to create what it needs. The real missing link is what is the controlling mechanism of a cell.
So does that answer your question? I think the basic Origin of Species theory is falsifiable and well tested much like Newtons Theory of Gravity. The problem with it is much like Newtons Theory of Gravity, the mechanism is unknown. Einstein provided the mechanism for Gravity (curved space), but no one as of yet has provided the mechanism for what controls cells. The problem is that it is likely to be many mechanisms, working variably and interrelated.
Solving the controlling mechanism problem, may answer the origin of life problem : ) In any case, the solution will not contradict Darwins theory, just like Einstein's theories didn't 'disprove' Newtons theories. It may completely change our view of what life is though :)
The author is full of Shinola.
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.