Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
All theories of science are philosophical ones. The theory of gravity most particularly not excepted--most particularly lately.
Shoot, if what you say about "most scientists" is correct, then "most individual scientists believe" would do. Enough to say hey, we aren't shutting the door on heaven, that has to be your choice.
Huh. Nearly an agreement in principle--who'd have thunk it?
HA! (quoting Chris Matthews). Seems right to me. :^)
So do you want to qualify evidence such that we might have an argument precisely about this matter??? How would we even begin to proceed???
(I shall be guided by you, should you wish to go further. Unless I see you taking me over a cliff, in which case I might protest.)
Good to see you, RWP. Thanks for writing!
That's tough to answer definitively. When the Inquisition was founded, the chief worry was, I guess, the Albigensian/ Cathar heresies, which had been a concern before the founding of the inquisition. So I suppose you could say that the Inquisition was the enforcement arm of the various Councels of the church that established catholic dogma between 300ad and 1100ad, and they are officially deputies of, and subservient to the Holy See. But I expect it would be pretty silly to maintain that the Inquisition wasn't generating policy behind the scenes.
At the risk of further expanding a thread beneath the name of Dawkins, I would suggest that a rapacious grasp for truth, no matter who might be the subject, deserves at least a hearing in the academic arena. We cannot cogitate upon any idea, no matter how absurd, until it is presented. That is why I believe, despite Dawkins' bent toward or killing religion, he deserves a place at the table; or under it. At least he should be heard.
Too bad he does not recognize this courtesy in return. Otherwise the observation regarding his carrot of mystery and stick of materialism speaks for itself.
You must have done some serious study on the history of canonical texts. Whatever statements you make in this regard I am inclined to regard as worth consideration. Is there a culminating idea WRT the subject at hand you are attempting to assert?
Where the topic of creationism vs. materialistic evolution is concerned it seems the text of Genesis 1 is a good point of reference. Every biblical text makes statements the hearer will evaluate one way or another, or, as often happens, disregard. After some years of familiarity with the canonical texts it is my belief that the Law of Gravity, for example, is an ongoing miracle, even though my reason and senses have been dulled to its effect and Source.
Thus, as an observer so far, I tend to lower the bar significantly where the supernatural is concerned. So much so, in fact, that a virgin birth, turning water in to wine, walking on water, rising from the dead, healing diseases, etc. is only slightly above the routine where the creation is concerned.
Are you thinking of the Zeno paradox or what?
var x = 1
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
{
x = 1 + x;
x = 1 / x;
x = 7 * x;
x = x / 4;
}
WScript.Echo(x + 1 / 2);
Everyone but me.
"All theories of science are philosophical ones. The theory of gravity most particularly not excepted--most particularly lately."
The gravity discussion would be interesting to bring up as a case in point, if the problem were not too difficult to describe at a popular level well enough that when the students COULD do all the math they would not complain of being misled. Things are not always what they seem.
In a larger sense I was referring to extra-scientific philosophical claims that are made about Science (but for which Science cannot return the favor because the scope relation is asymmetrical). Something to the effect that many/most biological scientists individually view their work through a philosophical lens that allows for or affirms an active creation agent in a successive appearance of the various plants and animals that existed or exist now. And that some biological scientists are skeptical of the mainstream TOE position. But that the study at hand will propound no absolute doctrine about the matter. And with that word, a brief study of ID philosophy, followed by the TOE, commences. Science is viewed as a servant rather than a master.
Vied for members, perhaps, but there was no Grab-the-Leader Prize for winning that battle as would have been possible when the Roman emperor got involved. Pardon me if I am skeptical that somehow the "winner" (however defined) did a successful sweep of the world to rub out all the earlier records, sent hither and abroad, that did not *quite* match the "winning" doctrine. The gospel wasn't chained. It would be like trying to stuff toothpaste back into a tube.
you old square rooter
This statement is completely at variance with how science is done in the U.S. If it is what you think, you have no understanding at all how scientific organizations work. For one thing, peer-review is international. I review mostly articles from overseas (usually Europe or Asia, rather than the US). Likewise, most of my stuff gets reviewed overseas.
In short hand, that is the "randomness" pillar of evolution theory: random mutations - natural selection > species.
How does this statement even relate the the previous statment? "Randomness" is not a pillar, merely an obervation.
Please post some evidence (actual articles, the peer-reviews, the editor's replies, etc.) to show this is so. I'll be glad to pass your evidence to the publishers. You must have evidence though. Many well know kooks (Archimeded Plutonium, Albert Silvermann and James Harris on the Usenet, for example) also claim peer-review is a joke because their junk is rejected.
Only partially. All of Zeno's paradoxes stem from misapplication of measures, not necessarily from the incomensurability of ratios. Zeno's paradoxes are very subtle; correct explanations are not so easy to come by. There are several good books on the subject (and without looking, I'll guess several internet sites that explain Zeno.)
Oh garsh, me secret is revealed.
Such a comment, coming from one whose thought processes are the cognative equivalent of Boron Nitride, must be taken with a grain of Sodium Chloride.
We are a long, long way from eliminating mystery from the world. Even in as reductively complete a case as QM, there seems to be no end to the mystery. My personal favorite is the electron that can tell the orientation of a magnetic field even though it is excluded from the region of the field. Another cool one is the bomb detector that uses light to detect a light-activated bomb.
In fact, one can argue that mystery can never be eliminated entirely because every scientific theory must have axioms and undefined terms.
BYW, my feeling is that Dawkins doesn't have an agenda per se, merely an intense and irrational dislike for religion. One often sees the reciprocal dislike for irreligion on these threads.
Achilles?
Festival of Uranus placemarker
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.