I soitenly stand corrected. Hey Moe look at this. 
Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Almost 150 years ago, Charles Darwin knew something that the scientific establishment seems to have forgotten -- something that is being endangered today in the state of Ohio.
In Ohio, high school science students are at risk of being told that they are not allowed to discuss questions and problems that scientists themselves openly debate. While most people understand that science is supposed to consider all of the evidence, these students, and their teachers, may be prevented from even looking at the evidence -- evidence already freely available in top science publications.
In late 2002, the Ohio Board of Education adopted science education standards that said students should know "how scientists investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design. They mandate something much milder. According to the standards, students should know that "scientists may disagree about explanations . . . and interpretations of data" -- including the biological evidence used to support evolutionary theory. If that sounds like basic intellectual freedom, that's because it is.
The Ohio Department of Education has responded by implementing this policy through the development of an innovative curriculum that allows students to evaluate both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.
And that has the American scientific establishment up in arms. Some groups are pressuring the Ohio Board to reverse its decision. The president of the National Academy of Sciences has denounced the "Critical Analysis" lesson -- even though it does nothing more than report criticisms of evolutionary theory that are readily available in scientific literature.
Hard as it may be to believe, prominent scientists want to censor what high school students can read and discuss. It's a story that is upside-down, and it's outrageous. Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and others that are supposed to advance science are doing their best to suppress scientific information and stop discussion.
Debates about whether natural selection can generate fundamentally new forms of life, or whether the fossil record supports Darwin's picture of the history of life, would be off-limits. It's a bizarre case of scientists against "critical analysis."
And the irony of all of this is that this was not Charles Darwin's approach. He stated his belief in the ORIGIN OF SPECIES: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Darwin knew that objective science demands free and open inquiry, and while I disagree with Darwin on many things, on this he was absolutely right. And I say what's good enough for scientists themselves, as they debate how we got here, is good enough for high school students.
Contact us here at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527) to learn more about this issue and about an intelligent design conference we're co-hosting this June.
The Ohio decision is the leading edge of a wedge breaking open the Darwinist stranglehold on science education in this country. The students in Ohio -- and every other state -- deserve intellectual freedom, and they deserve it now.
To assure proper pronunciation in the Curly context, that's customarily spelled "Soitenly!"
I soitenly stand corrected. Hey Moe look at this.
Da noive a dem braggin' about dat! Knuckleheads! [Whap!]
Let's call uncertainty by it's ancient and more familiar name: skepticism.
Personally, I have nothing against skepticism. As a matter of fact, I find that it's an extremely useful tool for engaging in philosophizing. It really helps one to get at the bottom of things, especially those things that can be studied and questioned emperically. Of course, not everything can be studied emperically, because emperical methods themselves are quite limited in terms of what they can be used upon. But where they can be used, one can be quite certain that they will at least aid one in finding absolute truth, if not actually finding it. Once the absolute is found, then skepticism has done it's duty. If no absolute is found, then skepticism still has done it's duty, if only to tell us that in this particular case, there is absolutely no absolute.
Yet, because humans can ask questions ad nauseum about any subject they choose, and never allow the evidence to speak for itself, then we have decided that the only "rational" thing to do is be skeptical, since any given "absolute" can possibly change with an increase in knowledge or questioning. But there are many things which never change, no matter how much or how long you question them. Those things, for all practical purposes, are then absolutes. If absolutes are an illusion, then skepticism is even more so. For if there were no absolutes, there could be no skepticism to question them. How can one question that which never exisited? How can we even understand the term "absolute" unless somewhere, even if it's in our own minds, the concept exists?
The fact that we can even argue about something called "absolutes" is proof enough that it exists. Whether or not we can find things that have the property of being "absolute" is another question altoghter.
It is obvious to me (a certainty) that many men have taken a wonderful tool of philosophy; skepticism; and made it into philosophy itself. Instead of acknowleging it as a useful tool, they have turned it into the only tool. Of course the skeptics never ever admit to doing this; and in fact they are incapable of doing so (for their only tool prevents them), but their words and thoughts give them away every time.
Now to your comment:
I can't point to one thing in this world that possess certainty. I would not say there is no certainty because absolute statements require certainty. Certainty is an illusion that meets a childish need - the need to feel life has certainty and Mom and Dad will make everything better. Unfortunately that is not real. Nothing in life is dependent on certitude: knowledge, truth, love, life - none of these are dependent on certitude.
You have just proved my point. How can certainty be "not real" unless there is something that is real or that has the property of realness? Is being "real" then an absolute? You have just stated a certainty: "Unfortunately that [...mom and dad won't take care of you...] is not real." You don't leave any room for doubt or skepticism in that sentence.
You prove my point again by stating "Nothing in life is dependent upon certitude." That statement in itself is a statement of certitude, for you leave no room for doubt or skepticism in your comment. One cannot even argue against certitude without being certain.
Stating that you "believe" that there is no certitude is the same as stating that I believe there is no cold, or that I believe there is no light, or that I believe there is no life. No one can stop you from stating any of the above, but then no could blame a person for thinking you were a total fool for saying them.
Let me turn this back to you - in what do you claim certitude (other that God)?
Well, here's a few:
1) I exist.
2) I'm using a keyboard to type this reply.
3) I'm sitting down.
4) If I go to my neighborhood Pontiac dealer, I will find cars that have the property of being "Pontiacs."
5) If I go to my neighborhood McDonald's, I will not find the words "Whopper" on the menu.
6) If I play my favorite Harry Connick CD, it will have the exact same songs on it that I heard the last time I played it.
7) At this time (6:14 pm CST) it is dark outside.
8) The number "two" has always and forever will be equal to the number "two." (Same for the rest of the numbers, real or imaginary.)
9) I will die, or will at least, leave this earth.
10) There's a lot more examples, but these few will do for now.
You will notice that some of those things can be "proved," using the laws of logic, others cannot. That does not mean that certitudes do not exist in everyday life because they are incapable of proof, just that we do not have the means to prove them. So the problem is not that certitudes are overrated, but our means of arriving at certitudes are deficient.
I encourage you not to be so quick to embrace skepticism because certitude is difficult, if not sometimes impossible to prove. For skepticism itself is impossible to prove...just try proving it, even to yourself. But even if you were to prove skepticism, you have just found one thing to be certain about. And where there is one certainty, it may be possible to find more...
Please, don't stop questioning, for that is wisdom. But once you have found an answer, don't keep on questioning, for that is foolishness.
Only if one is certain that it's a CORRECT answer.
;^)
Certainly and absolutes are the same beast – I feel both are overrated. Little to nothing in this world is certain or absolute.
Let's call uncertainty by it's ancient and more familiar name: skepticism.
I don’t agree at all. Certainty can be influenced by skepticism but they are not one in the same. I can claim a position is not certain without holding any skepticism toward the position. Claiming that a position is not the only possible position or an answer is not the only possible answer does not require skepticism. All thinking is based on assumption – usually the assumption is I exist and am capable of rational thought. Since I cannot prove I exist – everything is based on uncertainty (to some degree). Can certainty be built on a foundation of uncertainty? I say no.
But there are many things which never change, no matter how much or how long you question them. Those things, for all practical purposes, are then absolutes.
Like what? What do you think are the absolutes? What do you think never change (BTW: for something to never change it most have existed forever in the exact same state – I know of nothing that fits that description)
For if there were no absolutes, there could be no skepticism to question them. How can one question that which never exisited? How can we even understand the term "absolute" unless somewhere, even if it's in our own minds, the concept exists?
So you are claiming man is incapable of thinking of something that does not exist in the real world – the mere fact that we can think of absolutes means absolutes exists – I don’t buy that for an instant. I can think of life on the moon but that does not prove there is life on the moon.
There is no connection between skepticism and absolutes – it is possible there are no absolutes in the known universe and we do have skepticism so clearly one can exist without the other.
Lots of people question Big Foot, the Lock Ness Monster and so on and the current line is these things don’t exist so clearly man is capable of questioning that which does not exist. If man has an imagination, man can question that which never existed.
The fact that we can even argue about something called "absolutes" is proof enough that it exists.
That is nonsense. Man argued about the existence of Fairies (about 100 years ago) – Fairies don’t exist (as far as I know) so clearly arguing about something does not prove that something exists.
You have just proved my point. How can certainty be "not real" unless there is something that is real or that has the property of realness?
I do not follow this logic. Are you claiming someting has to be "certain" to be "real". You are still acting like certainty is a requirement – it isn’t. I think you would be better off putting this in real terms rather than abstracts.
Is being "real" then an absolute?
No. I can’t prove I am “real”, can you?
You prove my point again by stating "Nothing in life is dependent upon certitude." That statement in itself is a statement of certitude, for you leave no room for doubt or skepticism in your comment. One cannot even argue against certitude without being certain.
Doesn’t work that way, I don’t have to be certain to state nothing in life is dependent on certainty (BTW: that is an opinion, not a statement of certitude). By its very nature I could be wrong. But enough of the pure abstract – state something you believe is certain. The proof is in the pudding – not the talking about it.
Stating that you "believe" that there is no certitude is the same as stating that I believe there is no cold, or that I believe there is no light, or that I believe there is no life.
Nonsense. Certainty is an adjective (in this context) and it is applied to nouns (a position, an answer, a way of doing things). What you are claiming is without this one adjective, nouns are not possible.
1) I exist.
So you are certain you exist. How do you test this certainty? You can’t use your senses because your senses presuppose you existence. You can’t use your thinking because thinking presupposes your existence. You can not test this hypothesis so you can not claim you exist with certainty. That does not mean you cannot be a high confidence level that you exist – but in this context you existing as a certainty is an illusion that you cannot sustain. One existing is usually considered a priori – an assumption.
2) I'm using a keyboard to type this reply.
I am a musician. I own many keyboards and none of them allow you to type characters into a web forum. Are you certain what you are using is a keyboard?
3) I'm sitting down
The fact is you are pressed against the side of the globe via gravity and down means different things at different points in the universe. This point may rarely impact your day-to-day life but it does keep you from having certainty as to what down really means.
4) If I go to my neighborhood Pontiac dealer, I will find cars that have the property of being "Pontiacs."
You can’t say that with certainty, you may find a car that is not a Pontiac or the dealer may have gone out of business (it happens) therefore you do not have certainty. The odds may be really good but you can’t be certain.
5) If I go to my neighborhood McDonald's, I will not find the words "Whopper" on the menu.
Unless of course I know you are on your way and I go to the Mickey D’s and print a piece of paper that says “menu” and it includes the word “Whopper” and I leave it on a table – there goes your certainty. You are confusing highly likely with certainty. Truth is you could be killed on your way to McDonalds (so much for your certainty).
6) At this time (6:14 pm CST) it is dark outside.
It isn’t dark in China. So much for certainty that it is “dark outside” (they have outside in China too)
Certainty is an illusion – that doesn’t mean there are not lots of things that are highly likely. In some context there is value in assuming certainty (in those cases certainty means certain within a closed system).
Certitude can be intellectual laziness - the turning off the thinking. Sure some things are pretty darn close to certain and adding in the margin of error, it is as good as certain. (of course a margin of error means certainty is not possible but I digress). Not one thing you stated has certitude (I can explain a way in which your certainty will be false – and that alone invalidates your certitude or renders it an illusion of certitude). The only reason you think they are examples of certainty is you make assumptions but you can never derive certainty from assumptions.
You have failed to re-convert me to the radical skeptic school of thought. Not that you didn't try, but that I've already been down that road, and found it lacking. Perhaps you will one day grow tired of it as well. It's fun for a while, but sooner or later we all must grow up, move to the suburbs, and vote Republican.
I know that at this time you are not able to find any certitude in life. That's OK. I've found more than enough for myself. And yes, there are still plenty of uncertainty's out there, but then there always has been.
Certainty is an illusion – that doesn’t mean there are not lots of things that are highly likely. In some context there is value in assuming certainty (in those cases certainty means certain within a closed system).
You keep proving certainty! "Certainty is an illusion..." is a statement of certainty. You may not like the concept of certainty very much, but you certainly like to make use of it to prove there is no certainty...
If you want to be completely consistent and intellectually honest, you have to prove uncertainty by using nothing but uncertain methods. The laws of logic are then off limits, since they are certain. (I don't know anyone who doubts them...) Anytime you go about "proving" or "unproving" anything, you are forced to use certainty, like it or not. So how does one go about "proving" certainty using nothing but uncertain methods?
If certainty is an illusion, then what isn't? If you state it's opposite: "uncertianty is real" you've just stated a certainty, like it or not. And why do you keep making absolute "opinions" like "certainty is an illusion" if there is no certainty? That statement, whether it be fact, opionion or whatever, is self-contradictory. You cannot say "certainty is an illusion" without MEANING "I'm certain that certainty is an illusion." No matter what sort of grammar/deffintion games you play, that statement is absurd at it's face value.
Anyway, you speak of an interesting thing: a "closed" system. Tell me, what systems are there that are truly "open?" All the systems I've ever encountered, be they real or imaginery, are always closed. Oh yes, there are those who play games with computer simulations that are bounded to "infinity." However, outside of those simulations, there are none in the natural (non-computer) world.
Certitude can be intellectual laziness - the turning off the thinking. Sure some things are pretty darn close to certain and adding in the margin of error, it is as good as certain. (of course a margin of error means certainty is not possible but I digress). Not one thing you stated has certitude.
Skepticism ("uncertainty") is just as much an excercise in intellectual laziness as certitude, if not more so. Questioning is not, nor has it ever been the equivalent of true "thinking," just a tool used to think. Once you get your answer for a particular issue, your thinking is done; whether or not that answer results in certainty or uncertainty.
(I can explain a way in which your certainty will be false – and that alone invalidates your certitude or renders it an illusion of certitude).
No, questioning or restating of a certainty does not make it "false." It never has, nor will it ever. All your explainations "prove" is that you are capable of creating explaintions. Yet, for some odd reason, you seem quite certain you have this ability...
The only reason you think they are examples of certainty is you make assumptions but you can never derive certainty from assumptions.
Again, you prove my point. By stating "the only reason you think..." is a statement that's absolute, a certainty. You again leave no room for doubt or uncertainty. Your own statments prove certainty. Whether or not your statements have the property of being "true" is another matter altogether. Certainty and truth are not synonomous, though there are those who mistakenly think that way. Perhaps they should try using skepticsim on their own thoughts...
The "certainty" of things can certianly be proved. Happens everyday by everyday people. I don't have to go forth into tremendous a series of logical proofs to wake-up in the morning and get dressed and make coffe, I just do it, and I'm quite certain I'm the one who's doing it. Whether or not I use logical proofs is besides the point. Strange thing about certitude, it does not need to be proven to be true.
But words and proofs are cheap aren't they? I have an experiment that can prove to you that there is, indeed, certainty in this world...
My experiment is thus: I will take a willing LVD to the top of the Sears Tower in downtown Chicago. He will be bound and gagged, then dangled over the edge of the building in such a fashion that there is a clear path for him to fall to the sidewalk below. At my signal, he will be released.
I predict, based on the certitude of my limited understanding of the law of gravity and physics, that LVD will fall in a downwards motion, reaching an airspeed not exceeding that of termainal velocity, and land smack on the sidewalk below. I further predict, with great certitude, that LVD will then be in a newfound condition that is unfortunately permanent: he will be dead. The point of reference for this experiment will be both myself, and LVD.
I have absolutely no doubts in my mind that my experiment would yield the results I predict if carried out in the method I described, because I relied on certitude in making my predictions.
Anytime you would like to participate in this experiment, and thereby have at least one proven example of certitude, let me know. Otherwise go well and stay well.
Certainty breeds assumptions and assumptions are the hobgoblins of intellectual laziness.
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.