Posted on 05/29/2002 8:32:25 AM PDT by cornelis
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection" (Darwin, p. 164).
”Symbiotic relationships pose such a challenge to Darwin's theory, since they have animals and plants of different species cooperating for the benefit of both. For example, the dodo bird ate the seeds and leaves of a plant called calvaria major. The bird benefited from having the plant as a food source, but the plant benefited from the bird's gizzard scratching its seeds as they passed through its digestive system. When the bird became extinct, the plant nearly disappeared as well, because only if its seeds are scratched can they germinate and then grow into a mature plant.”
Cooperation or Competition: Symbiosis vs. Evolution.
Even still, the term ‘evolution’ is used for explaining how the Universe began. We all know stars and planets were formed in time, but evolution says this happened by chance and without purpose. It mocks the possibility of a Cosmic Cosmetologist.
There is obviously a universal symbiosis (do stars and planets exist for there sake alone?). And even if we take evolution out of the universal equation we are left with chance. Or are we? If we have the only intelligence why do we search the cosmos and what do we hope to find?
Let’s say we find the preverbal “watch” in space - let’s say we found it here – what then?
Could be, but I don't remember using it very often and in this case I believe it applies.
Wan't he the nutcase who castrated himself?
You're thinking of Origen, a contemporary of Tertullian (late 2nd century -- first half of the 3rd). Both men were zealously ascetic, but only Origen self-castrated.
As far as I know we are able through tests to just detect the degree of such a presence with no possibility of detecting the full extent.
Since Science is unable to measure and weigh such does it exist?
Would seem to me an untenable position to hold as a Scientist. Just to state precisely the exact position one is in while in a moving universe is so profound that as a scientist I would not seek any dogma that states what really is and what is not purely on the basis of whether it can be measured.
My last and only course in psychological testing was probably late 1970 or early 1971. That said, I'd personally be very uncomfortable predicting ultimate limits for a person above a certain level of brain development. (Say, the "basket-case" level.)
One problem with trying to quantify creativity issues, there are a lot of "eye-of-the-beholder" issues. A kid makes a finger-painting. I see smears; you see a masterpiece. Is the kid creative? Depends who gets asked.
Since Science is unable to measure and weigh such does it exist?
Depends on your definition. The human brain, anyone's, is a finite thing. But can you imagine all the things that could come out of that brain in any situation? No. The brain responds to the environment, and if you're leaving the potential environmental stimuli unbounded, you can't put a bound on what might come out of the brain. Anyway, that's my best guess.
Quantifiability is important to a science's claim to be science, which is why Psychology has been striving for it for many decades. It wants to become a "hard science" instead of the squishy soft thing that it still is. (I'm being generous here. In other moments, I've agreed with a character on the old Newhart show that "it's all a crock.")
(There is a down side to this rush to numbers in that various scores and indexes are trumpeted as meaningful only to have subsequent studies undermine or qualify their reliability. How many people on this forum have bragged up their IQ or their SAT scores as if they were some kind of rock-solid achievement?)
Let's look at the converse of your statement:
The "real science" has to include things that can't be measured or quantified. (Or even detected, as Betty Boop sometimes suggests?)What's real about that science? How do you check to see if it's right?
The statement as written is tendentious. Just because I've suggested that science cannot detect something doesn't mean that the something is undetectable on principle (and therefore doesn't exist). My point was that science can detect entities that are quantifiable, or that can be inferred from events produced by other quantifiable entities.
Reasoning about them, and integrating them into more comprehensive systems is, of course, the work of something that is not "science" per se; for logic and reason seem to be criteria applicable to all of the knowledge disciplines; they are not just the handmaidens of Science.
I have certain ideas that refer to "objects" (bad word in this context) of "non-existent reality" -- "entities" which do not exist in the physical world at all. But they demonstrably are in the world.
I gather that you identify mind and brain. It is to lose a most vital distinction about the essential structure of reality to do so. Or so it seems to me.
But I must run for now to get to a doctors appointment. See you!
I am unable to even imagine the extent of a Mind. Yet to tell the truth, I am impressed with a notion that there is more 'reality' in the Mind than in what we see with our eyes. Does Science recognize such a preposterous idea? Not in this life.
To use the word 'real' may possibly indicate that we partition knowledge into categories that are themselves 'unreal'. Could it be that 'things' work more congruently and synergistically than we imagine? If that is true then 'Science' will never 'discover' Reality.
Allow me to state the Most unscientific statement possible. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. God said He was in everything and everything was in Him. Could this explain some startling revelations of Quantum Mechanics?
I truly believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand or even comprehend what is real, while stating there is no God.
The profoundly interconnectedness and elegant beauty of the largest or smallest particles of Energy is of such an order as to exact Awe from such a one as me.
Yet, Science does not recognize this. Therefore, as one thinking person to another my respect for Science as an authority on Reality is much deminished.
I'm unaware of a mind (a non-cyber one, anyway) outside of a brain. And what makes someone write "Heh. Heh?"
What do basket-case hydrocephalic babies and Alzheimer seniors have in common? Profound brain damage. No brain, no mind.
Allow me to state the Most unscientific statement possible. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. God said He was in everything and everything was in Him.
Looks untestable to me.
Could this explain some startling revelations of Quantum Mechanics?
Not unless I'm smoking what you're smoking.
Therefore, as one thinking person to another my respect for Science as an authority on Reality is much deminished.
If you're just telling me this as a comment, fine. You're entitled to your opinion. If you're telling me you'd like to dumb down science courses with a lot of hocus-pocus nonsense, gedoudda here!
You see, I am saying that there is so much activity that is not measureable. Therefore, science is not a dependable source for a full explanation of life on this planet much less the universe or even the mind.
What if the following analogy is half way correct? Could the brain-mind be similar to the computer-internet? Could the brain be the hardware to connect to 'the mind'?
You see, I was surprised you didn't mention that in your comment on alzheimers.
**Allow me to state the Most unscientific statement possible. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. God said He was in everything and everything was in Him.
Looks untestable to me.**
Which was my intented point. Science does not accept the concept of belief, confidence or trust, unless they are applied to money. Doesn't that leave a rather gaping hole in their argument, or is this just an exercise to convince without using logical statements?
Are you in effect stating you must be 'shown' something before you believe it? Is that what testable amounts to? Do you actually believe some men landed on the moon? All you have seen have been photographs not 'the' men on 'the' moon. How would you 'test' that?
When one reads the newspapers of the day and several make similar statements, do you believe them because there is a concensus? Which reporter would bring to you the tested news?
It seems self-evident to me there is so much of LIFE that is completely untestable that it requires a system other than 'science' to endeavor an explanation of what we would call reality.
Friends, I am asking if my conjectures have substance, not stating just an opinion.
Science is unable to state an absolute because it is constantly COMPARING one thing to another to determine a conclusion. Einstein knew he NEEDED an Absolute factor to determine his conclusions.
For instance, your Absolute position in the universe is impossible to determine by the use of science because the Earth is spinning, the solar system is moving in some particular direction, the Milky Way is spinning and moving in a particular direction. So, Science is only able to determine a 'footprint' of one's approximate location.
The Creator by definition is the only one able to determine an Absolute point of location.
Just because we are unable to determine such an exact point has NO bearing on whether one exists or not.
My contention from this sylogism is that Absolutes exist whether science is able to determine them or not.
I wouldn't brag about that.
You see, I am saying that there is so much activity that is not measureable. Therefore, science is not a dependable source for a full explanation of life on this planet much less the universe or even the mind.
What's "dependable" about anything unscientific?
Are you in effect stating you must be 'shown' something before you believe it? Is that what testable amounts to? Do you actually believe some men landed on the moon? All you have seen have been photographs not 'the' men on 'the' moon. How would you 'test' that?
It's highly improbable that anyone faked the moon landings. When you model what the faking would involve, how incredibly many people would have to be in on the fraud, the obvious benefits of really doing it versus faking it and pretending you did it, the conclusion that it was successfully faked and successfully covered up all this time becomes ridiculous.
But your analogy is more apt than you intend. The kind of people to whom you can sell the "faked moon landing story" have something important in common with people who don't buy evolution. To reach either conclusion, you have to ignore an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Some people just don't reason from evidence.
It seems self-evident to me there is so much of LIFE that is completely untestable that it requires a system other than 'science' to endeavor an explanation of what we would call reality.
I can only interpret this that you consider religious explanations more "real" than scientific ones. In my universe, religion deals with other areas.
Friends, I am asking if my conjectures have substance, not stating just an opinion.
But you are rejecting substantial (i.e, scientific) tests of your opinion in favor of . . . what?
The scientific method is an endeavor to form a system to determine the truth of a matter. When looking at the basis of any Theorem one will find Givens. A Given needs no proof. In the realm of religion it would be called a leap of faith.
For instance: I doubt you will ever find a real definition of two of the most important concepts when beginning to use the scientific method, Energy and Electricity. You will find answers to what each does, but my question is what are they?
So, here is my point. When I contemplate any part of this universe, at the center of my thoughts is God. Then I am able to ponder and consider what He has done and how I may become more acquainted with the most intricate details of it's unique characteristics.
For me to start from a stand point of there being no God and trying to manipulate means and methods for ascertaining the truth of a matter with out God's presence will twist the conclusion and cause my science to be far off course and need many corrections every few years. That is what we have now, isn't it?
Theorem? You're doing math here. Empirical sciences work rather differently because you have to work observation and/or experiment into the process.
For instance: I doubt you will ever find a real definition of two of the most important concepts when beginning to use the scientific method, Energy and Electricity. You will find answers to what each does, but my question is what are they?
Energy, with its twin, mass, is at the bottom of the hierarchy of things physics considers. Thus, it gets a little hard to describe in simpler terms. Energy in Newtonian terms was potential to do work, where work is the moving of mass against resistance. There's are formulae for computing the energy of an object in various situations, for instance, the energy of its motion ( KE = 1/2mv2 ).
Now various people have pointed out that the most basic Newtonian concepts are a bit circular in definition. Force is what it takes to accelerate a mass ( F = ma ). Mass is resistance to acceleration ( m = F/a ). Nicely circular, true, but we also have the more intuitive idea that mass has something to do with how much stuff there is in a thing. A startling development of the last century is that energy turns out to be mass in another guise and vice-versa. Go figure!
Your other example is electricity. For some reason, various people throw up electricity as an example of something poorly understood. Some anecdote of very old origin that I first heard in High School back in the 60s from a very old teacher may be responsible.
A grad student is being orally examined for a degree. He's asked, "What is electricity?"Anyway, electricity is a high-level phenomenon. It's a mass behavior of the electric charges carried by certain particles, generally the electron. One can maybe argue that we're not sure at some level what an electron is--a vibrating string, a membrane, a knot in spacetime--but the mass behavior of electrons, static and current electricity, is not a mystery. Maxwell put electromagnetism on a sound basis back in the later 19th century. CAD/CAM computer programs can model the behavior of current in a never-built circuit with a high accuracy. Thus, I'd call electricity a poor example of something that remains a mystery.Flustered, he says, "I used to know, but I forgot."
"Pity!" the examining prof observes. "The only person who ever knew, forgot!"
So, here is my point. When I contemplate any part of this universe, at the center of my thoughts is God. Then I am able to ponder and consider what He has done and how I may become more acquainted with the most intricate details of it's unique characteristics.
This need not corrupt your results if you give God sufficient latitude to do things His own way. Too many, however, feel that He boxed himself into a corner with the Book of Genesis and now must be covered for. God should not lead you to the kind of bad reasoning that Philip Johnson reveals in his books and interviews.
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.