My 180 On Evolution

[mfbukowski]

Something new? Did you know that Darwin's ideas were mixed with Mendel's ideas and now we have what they call the Modern Synthesis?

http://en.wikipedia....onary_synthesis

Dern scientists beat ya to the punch.

Yes I know. Thanks. That's not the point. The point is there is always something newer and nothing will ever be completely "right" because by the time we come up with something new, WE ourselves have changed and even the new answers are irrelevant because we are asking different questions.

This guy Kuhn was just ripping off the ideas of guys like James and Dewey and arguably even Hegel, but if you don't know him you should anyway

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Thomas_Kuhn

...the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing accounts of reality which cannot be coherently reconciled. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full "objectivity"; we must account for subjective perspectives as well.

And I agree with Popper that the whole idea of natural selection is just a tautology. I maintain he never rejected that position really, he just bowed to popular pressure to be politically correct.

I mean even memetics is arguably nothing but natural selection. The environment changes, and what survives, survives.

Brilliant.

Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativized discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

Polanyi is brilliant but he is just another Pragmatist- the movement started well over a hundred years ago.

Edited June 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Aliwe]

Yes I know. Thanks. That's not the point. The point is there is always something newer and nothing will ever be completely "right" because by the time we come up with something new, WE ourselves have changed and even the new answers are irrelevant because we are asking different questions.

Four hundred years ago Galileo looked through a telescope and saw the planet Venus undergo a change of phases. It wasn't such a big deal when it was a cresent Venus, but when it was a waxing gibbous Venus he knew he was on to something. It meant Venus went AROUND the sun. Copernicus was right. The Church threatened him with torture if he published because scripture said the earth was fixed. Eventually (1992) the Church said, gee, sorry Galileo. Evolution is the same thing, except there's no monolithic Church which can suppress the truth anymore, except for the very faithful, in odd corners here and there. And the ironic thing is this intolerable situation was created by Fundamentalists themselves when they laid down the parameters, saying scripture is absolutely innerrant, and is a geology book, a history book, and a biology book. They set themselves up to fail.

[mfbukowski]

Now, the scientist can express his faith in science by stating that "someday" we will understand. But the religionist can say the same thing.

The truth is, neither one will ever fully understand as long as they think there is something to fully understand instead of just different constructs which work until we get more information.

You see that, if you are a scientist, as Kuhn did, referenced above, or if you are a religionist, specifically LDS, you can say that there will always be "continuing revelation"

But ultimately there is no "There" there. The destination is the journey.

[mfbukowski]

Four hundred years ago Galileo looked through a telescope and saw the planet Venus undergo a change of phases. It wasn't such a big deal when it was a cresent Venus, but when it was a waxing gibbous Venus he knew he was on to something. It meant Venus went AROUND the sun. Copernicus was right. The Church threatened him with torture if he published because scripture said the earth was fixed. Eventually (1992) the Church said, gee, sorry Galileo. Evolution is the same thing, except there's no monolithic Church which can suppress the truth anymore, except for the very faithful, in odd corners here and there. And the ironic thing is this intolerable situation was created by Fundamentalists themselves when they laid down the parameters, saying scripture is absolutely innerrant, and is a geology book, a history book, and a biology book. They set themselves up to fail.

Scientists themselves are just fundamentalists actually thinking that "truth" is out there somehow waiting to be "discovered".

Scientists tend to think science is just as "inerrant" as your typical Biblical fundy thinks the Bible is.

Edited June 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

Evolution is getting old

Now, that's funny! lol

Scientists tend to think science is just as "inerrant" as your typical Biblical fundy thinks the Bible is.

CFR

[thesometimesaint]

Science by definition is always tentative. But disproving it takes hard work.

[bcuzbcuz]

Scientists themselves are just fundamentalists actually thinking that "truth" is out there somehow waiting to be "discovered".

Scientists tend to think science is just as "inerrant" as your typical Biblical fundy thinks the Bible is.

Still waiting for you to supply some names of scientists who think science is "inerrant". A scientific theory, for example, is like fresh fruit. As soon as it goes bad it's thrown out.

All you got to do to prove evolution wrong is find the bones of any of the millions of people drowned during Noah's flood, resting among all the dinosaur bones from the millions of dinosaurs drowned at the same time. Just one little, itsy-bitsy, bone. Can't be that hard to find??

[ERayR]

Still waiting for you to supply some names of scientists who think science is "inerrant". A scientific theory, for example, is like fresh fruit. As soon as it goes bad it's thrown out.

All you got to do to prove evolution wrong is find the bones of any of the millions of people drowned during Noah's flood, resting among all the dinosaur bones from the millions of dinosaurs drowned at the same time. Just one little, itsy-bitsy, bone. Can't be that hard to find??

And one itsy-bitsy bone is all we need to construct volumes of made up stories.

[bcuzbcuz]

And one itsy-bitsy bone is all we need to construct volumes of made up stories.

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. Please clarify.

[Calm]

Hi close friends

I feel all warm and fuzzy....where is that badger? I want to give him a hug.

[blackstrap]

responded to now nonexistant posts

Edited June 27, 2012 by blackstrap

[mfbukowski]

Still waiting for you to supply some names of scientists who think science is "inerrant". A scientific theory, for example, is like fresh fruit. As soon as it goes bad it's thrown out.

All you got to do to prove evolution wrong is find the bones of any of the millions of people drowned during Noah's flood, resting among all the dinosaur bones from the millions of dinosaurs drowned at the same time. Just one little, itsy-bitsy, bone. Can't be that hard to find??

If you had understood the post you would know that I think the data for "evolution" is conclusive and obvious.

Probably "inerrant" was the wrong term. What I meant is that scientists often believe that science is the only way to pursue truth.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Science by definition is always tentative. But disproving it takes hard work.

You can't disprove science. All you can do is disprove hypothesis or theories, which is how science works. Science as a paradigm is so firmly established it won't be disproven, but various kinds of thinking, and weird unsubstantiated, unsupported theories certainly can be refuted.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

If you had understood the post you would know that I think the data for "evolution" is conclusive and obvious.

Probably "inerrant" was the wrong term. What I meant is that scientists often believe that science is the only way to pursue truth.

Well, the more science learns and shares, the less room there are for miracles and God. Who amongst us cast out devils these days for illnesses? Or, are doctors now consulted instead?

[thesometimesaint]

Kerry A. Shirts:

We actually do it everyday. There are ten of thousands if not more working their little brains out trying to prove some facet of science wrong. After all that is what a theory is. The best natural explanation at the present time for a natural action or reaction.

[mfbukowski]

You can't disprove science. All you can do is disprove hypothesis or theories, which is how science works. Science as a paradigm is so firmly established it won't be disproven, but various kinds of thinking, and weird unsubstantiated, unsupported theories certainly can be refuted.

That is not the way many philosophers of science see it. Kuhn was a popularizer of this view, but it is well established.

Science does not teach abut "what is" but is always interpretive in a cultural context- it a sense each new view is itself a new creation.

Incommensurability

According to Kuhn, the scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so different that their theories are incommensurable — the new paradigm cannot be proven or disproven by the rules of the old paradigm, and vice versa. The paradigm shift does not merely involve the revision or transformation of an individual theory, it changes the way terminology is defined, how the scientists in that field view their subject, and, perhaps most significantly, what questions are regarded as valid, and what rules are used to determine the truth of a particular theory. The new theories were not, as the scientists had previously thought, just extensions of old theories, but were instead completely new world views. Such incommensurability exists not just before and after a paradigm shift, but in the periods in between conflicting paradigms. It is simply not possible, according to Kuhn, to construct an impartial language that can be used to perform a neutral comparison between conflicting paradigms, because the very terms used are integral to the respective paradigms, and therefore have different connotations in each paradigm. The advocates of mutually exclusive paradigms are in a difficult position: "Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs." (SSR, p. 148). Scientists subscribing to different paradigms end up talking past one another.

Kuhn (SSR, section XII) states that the probabilistic tools used by verificationists are inherently inadequate for the task of deciding between conflicting theories, since they belong to the very paradigms they seek to compare. Similarly, observations that are intended to falsify a statement will fall under one of the paradigms they are supposed to help compare, and will therefore also be inadequate for the task. According to Kuhn, the concept of falsifiability is unhelpful for understanding why and how science has developed as it has. In the practice of science, scientists will only consider the possibility that a theory has been falsified if an alternative theory is available that they judge credible. If there is not, scientists will continue to adhere to the established conceptual framework. If a paradigm shift has occurred, the textbooks will be rewritten to state that the previous theory has been falsified.

http://en.wikipedia....fic_Revolutions

These scientific revolutions are always expressed in language, obviously, by defining reality in new ways of seeing things.

This is an incredibly important thing to understand for LDS - the idea that Man "organizes" what we know as "reality" into new forms - or "worlds" if you like can be seen as a metaphor for our view that God, a man, organizes worlds by his Word. Which is that metaphor and which is the "reality" of course is open to conjecture

The understanding of this metaphor is crucial to understanding why LDS theology is not in any way contradictory to science, but in fact functions as an explanation of science, expressed metaphorically.

When you truly understand this, it can be a life-changing moment and you see both the world and the gospel in a whole different way.

Edited June 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Well, the more science learns and shares, the less room there are for miracles and God. Who amongst us cast out devils these days for illnesses? Or, are doctors now consulted instead?

That is not the issue. Can a scientist prove that abortion is wrong?

The most important issues in life have nothing to do with science.

[mfbukowski]

Probably "inerrant" was the wrong term. What I meant is that scientists often believe that science is the only way to pursue truth.

Probably yet a better way to say it is that they view scientific method as the only way to "discover" truth, when in fact truth is nothing but a linguistic statement which works for a specific purpose.

And none of those purposes include the most important questions in life. Yes, we can build computers and fly to the moon and talk on the internet and create nuclear fission, but scientists can't tell you much about what gives an individual meaning in his life.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Probably yet a better way to say it is that they view scientific method as the only way to "discover" truth, when in fact truth is nothing but a linguistic statement which works for a specific purpose.

And none of those purposes include the most important questions in life. Yes, we can build computers and fly to the moon and talk on the internet and create nuclear fission, but scientists can't tell you much about what gives an individual meaning in his life.

scientists can't tell you much about meaning in life?! Of course they can! Where on earth did you find or think that silly idea? The meaning of life is not the exclusive property of religion in any manner....... now yer just repeating what the church has told you.........I will gently disagree.......

It's like my dad used to say that the Lord blesses the righteous with more money than those who are not righteous, the righteous always receive more blessings, because that's what he was raised with and told in the church all his life. Today's multitudinous billionaires are a direct refutation of that church teaching .......how many of them are LDS? Now granted, I say this for illustration......I know the church doesn't teach this OFFICIALLY.....but behind the scenes, it is one of those simple "obvious understood things" sort of hush hush among the righteous themselves secrets........ and it's all eyewash, mere wishful thinking. God blesses the wicked just as surely as he does the righteous......one has to come to that conclusion, otherwise we can say God is rather biased or even racist, no? But dad was told what to think and had never thought through the implications of trying to foist that canard onto me..........thank goodness he waited until I was in my 20's before really trying to get me to believe it.....

Edited June 27, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Calm]

Well, the more science learns and shares, the less room there are for miracles and God.

I don't see it that way at all. It seems to me that the more we learn the more we learn there is so much more we don't know out there. We are expanding the room for learning and the pursuit of knowledge, not contracting it. Every step we take in our pursuit of knowledge brings us to higher up on the mountain and that allows us to see that much further...and that allows us to see that the horizon is much, much farther away than it appeared when we were down in the valley and it looked like the universe didn't exist much beyond our doorstep.

Plus believing there may be less "miraculous" (supernatural) events doesn't mean there is less room for God any more than learning as I grew older and had my own experiences how my parents managed to provide a safe and happy home for us children means that their work on behalf of me is less than what it was in any way, in fact I am even more appreciative when I realize the sacrifices that they have made on my behalf and continue to make.

Even if we manage to learn how God operates in the universe and it does not seem to be so miraculous to us any more, that does not mean that it will diminish in any way the miracle of why he does all this for us, the miracle of his infinite love will always be there for us to be awed at.

You seem to be a bit more pessimistic about things in general since last we spoke, has life been rough (if so I am so sorry, you deserve better) or are you just trying to help people get out of their ruts and go out and experience life more by kicking some overly comfortable derrieres?

[Calm]

now yer just repeating what the church has told you........

Oh, you need to get to know mfb much better.....you are just wrong about this one, Kerry. You two could have a lot of fun together. I suggest finding some nice comfortable, quiet corner with some big comfy chairs..... Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

scientists can't tell you much about meaning in life?! Of course they can! Where on earth did you find or think that silly idea? The meaning of life is not the exclusive property of religion in any manner....... now yer just repeating what the church has told you.........I will gently disagree.......

Unfortunately you are mistaken about this. I was 31 years old and nearly had finished my masters in philosophy before I even knew what a Mormon was and it was my philosophical background which led me to the church.

Dude, I think it is time you read some philosophy- start with William James and Dewey- that would be my recommendation.

As kindly as I can I am saying "You don't know what you are talking about".

[mfbukowski]

Oh, you need to get to know mfb much better.....you are just wrong about this one, Kerry. You two could have a lot of fun together. I suggest finding some nice comfortable, quiet corner with some big comfy chairs.....

Any time- I would love to do that!!