Clarification - Admission is Free (pay at the door)

Quote :

"which one is the one where you still believe in god and jesus and all that stuff but definitely know thats its pretty obvious humans came from some ape like creature, like homo habillis or something -drunknloaded"

perhaps you are referring to Compatibilism?

moron - i wrote down your question and will put it into the question pool at the debate. If anyone else has a question they'd like heard (even if you won't be there) you can PM it to me and i'll put it in.

We do have a strong moderator - it will be as 'fair' as possible. This debate isn't supposed to be entirely about arguing the merits of ID alone - we intend to take a look at policy toward public schools. Still, if ID is just a faith-based belief, it probably doesn't belong.

Perhaps we should have gotten Dr. Austin - the philosophy of science professor. He'd be all over arguing why science is faith-based too, leaving us with nothing but skepticism.



[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 3:56 PM. Reason : - ]

4/19/2006 3:56:01 PM

Quote :

"This debate isn't supposed to be entirely about arguing the merits of ID alone - we intend to take a look at policy toward public schools. Still, if ID is just a faith-based belief, it probably doesn't belong. "

Except there is no debating this anymore. There is a major, thorough and virtually unrebutted court precident now set. You should read it, as should everyone who is on these panels. Because I garauntee maybe one of them has even heard of it.

It has nothing to do with being "faith-based". Being faith based is absolutely fine. Science is absolutely faith based as well.

ID and Creationism have NO place in school because they are not falsifiable.

4/19/2006 7:04:54 PM

Quote :

"evolution is intelligent design. what's the argument."

4/19/2006 7:23:29 PM

There are multiple flavors of ID, some of which are just fundies who just renamed their "7000 year old earth theory" and others that have more merit and have interesting points.

There is a continuim between ID and evolution, it's not as black and white as everyone thinks.

4/19/2006 7:29:43 PM

everyone knows the entire 7000 year theory is crap. it's bogus. it's a scam. it's not factual. it's make believe. but however I believe evolution is divine.

4/19/2006 7:34:09 PM

Quote :

"There are multiple flavors of ID"

Even MORE reason why it's fucking stupid to try and debate this. And it doesn't matter what flavor of ID it is, there is absolutely NOTHING in CURRENT evolutionary theory which conflicts with the ideals of intelligent design. If God is the designer and evolution is his design, then it fits fine.

I also LOVE how for oh say, 1,000 years, Christianity has professed that there is no evolution, everything was placed on the earth EXACTLY as it is today, God made everything for a purpose etc. And now all of a sudden, no wait for it, since there is more and more scientific credibility for micro-evolution, all of a sudden it's God's plan, and you forsake your own previous beliefs. NICE.

4/19/2006 9:08:39 PM

God put all of those fossils deep under that hard rock just to screw with us....the earth was created 7000 years ago, accept it!!

4/20/2006 1:39:39 AM

I don't understand how one sees evolution and the existence of God as opposed to each other. Genesis is poetry and its purpose isn't to be a scientific textbook. It's there to explain the deeper 'why' about creation and yes, there are influences from outside the Hebrew world most definitely.

4/20/2006 1:42:55 AM

^It's because anyone who understands the scientific process and honestly accepts evolution on its scientific merits would see no justification for tacking on some made up bullshit onto real science. You can't accept evolution because it's the most plausible, well-supported, well-researched, well-developed theory on one hand, then accept religion purely on faith and legend. This kind of hypocrite doesn't really accept evolution.

The people who believe in both are actually just guilty religious people who feel too embarrassed to admit that they believe in some fantasy shit. Thus, they have to creatively rationalize their backward beliefs with the undeniable science of the time. It's all to make themselves feel better.


[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 2:22 AM. Reason : sdfsdf]

4/20/2006 2:15:21 AM

Quote :

"Except there is no debating this anymore. There is a major, thorough and virtually unrebutted court precident now set. You should read it, as should everyone who is on these panels. Because I garauntee maybe one of them has even heard of it."

the problem is that despite a Supreme Court ruling in 1987 on the issue (and, hell, Scopes in '52), we currently have a multitude of school districts even considering this idea...

considering the amazing things that politically polarized legislatures can do, the paranoia in me wants to stomp ID into the ground as thoroughly as possible

Debate is tonight. 7:00pm, Caldwell G-107 ... come with some good questions, and you can entirely direct where the conversation goes.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 1:22 PM. Reason : felt right]

4/20/2006 1:08:52 PM

Quote :

"It's because anyone who understands the scientific process and honestly accepts evolution on its scientific merits would see no justification for tacking on some made up bullshit onto real science. You can't accept evolution because it's the most plausible, well-supported, well-researched, well-developed theory on one hand, then accept religion purely on faith and legend. This kind of hypocrite doesn't really accept evolution."

That argument is dependent on the notion that Science can explain everything. Additionally, your statement discounts a lot of scientists who were religious, but also came up with well-supported, well-researched, well-developed theories.

Georges Lemaitre's research at MIT was the basis for the Big Bang Theory. Oh and he was also a Catholic priest.

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim incompatibility between religion and science.

4/20/2006 1:34:28 PM

I don't think he claimed some sort of eternal "incompatibility" between science and religion. Although currently there most certainly is one IMO. I don't think anyone has claimed that science can explain everything either, although I believe it possibly could (Eventually). I do not see how science being incomplete at this point in time gives any credit to a religiously based "theory." Not only that, but from everything I've observed science HAS pretty much proven evolution to be real, with shittons of evidence to back it up. ID has zero evidence to support it's claims. Well, let me rephraze that, it does have evidence based on lies and misinterpretation of scientific theory.

You are claiming that religion is here to explain things that science can't explain. What you mean is that when you can't explain something you just make shit up.

I can't see why they don't just call ID "religion." It is non-scientific in nature, and isn't particularly compatible with scientific evidence. There is no real reason for it to be considered as a possibility, other than the fact that many people are convinced that things they read (Which were written by other human fucking beings) are 100% accurate.

The fact that a catholic preist supposedly discovered the "basis for the big bang theory" also says NOTHING about the connection between science and religion. Are you implying that his being religious had an effect on his scientific data? If so I'd say the data is likely flawed.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ]

4/20/2006 1:52:33 PM

If we have to give "equal time" to all theories in Biology class (Intelligent Design),
then we will also have to give "equal time" to all theories in Economics (Communism).

4/20/2006 2:02:21 PM

I want equal time for the FSM as well in biology class, because I want my children to learn about EVERY possibility.



[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 2:05 PM. Reason : We need to start teaching scientology based theory in psychology classes as well btw.]

4/20/2006 2:03:52 PM

also we need to discuss alternate theories about ZOG in Political Science.

4/20/2006 2:12:02 PM

Quote :

"The fact that a catholic preist supposedly discovered the "basis for the big bang theory" also says NOTHING about the connection between science and religion. Are you implying that his being religious had an effect on his scientific data? If so I'd say the data is likely flawed."

No, the purpose of my entire post was to refute skokian's assertion that someone would have to be a hypocrite to accept both science and religion. Read next time.

4/20/2006 2:59:42 PM

Science and religion go hand in hand. Science is about figuring out falsifiable truths, Religion is about figuring out the rest. Each one relies on one another to progress, and neither would be where they are today without the other.

4/20/2006 3:36:06 PM

falsifiability is a stupid way to define science especially considering that it would not allow the theory of evolution to be called science (and Karl Popper pointed that out himself)

4/20/2006 3:43:57 PM

OMFG WORDS!!

(Semantics, are we really going to argue semantics now?)

4/20/2006 5:32:12 PM

A few people will go in with the belief that you should reject science and only have faith, the majority will think science is the tool of a supernatural being, and another few people will think science without committing to additional supernatural beliefs is the way to go.

Everyone will come out thinking what they thought when they went in. A subsection of that everyone will be ppl who use tdub who use positions or quotes from the debate to try to get other people to see it their way (which is a way that was entirely unaffected by the debate).

4/20/2006 5:51:24 PM

Quote :

"That argument is dependent on the notion that Science can explain everything."

Incorrect. Science is perfectly fine with the idea that things currently aren't explainable and may never be. The essence of science, though, is accepting something as plausible through a fairly rigorous scientific process. Based on the track record so far, people have very good reasons to be optimistic about the scientific process.

On the flip side, it's religion that's dependent on the notion that science doesn't currently explain everything. Based on the track record, religion has been terrible at explaining the truths of the world. The steady advance of science is directly proportional to the weakening of religious assertions. This is the god-of-the-gaps phenomenon -- religion only occupies the areas where we have gaps of scientific knowledge. These gaps keep getting eliminated, and religion is forced to retreat.

Intelligent design is just the next step. ID folks are trying to side step the god-of-the-gaps problem by saying, "All that scientific shit -- god's really pulling the strings!" The honest scientist looks at that and sees that we can cut those strings and have a better scientific theory (because it doesnt introduce a lot of unscientific bullshit).

Quote :

"Additionally, your statement discounts a lot of scientists who were religious, but also came up with well-supported, well-researched, well-developed theories. Georges Lemaitre's research at MIT was the basis for the Big Bang Theory. Oh and he was also a Catholic priest. "

Don't get too excited about your logical fallacy. Just because someone is a scientist, even an accomplished one, doesn't exempt them from being hypocrites. Humans aren't perfect reasoning machines, and there are a lot of reasons people are religious -- stupidity, social pressure, upbringing, some sort of hardship, incarceration. People are more than capable of holding two contradictory beliefs.

Quote :

"It's absolutely ridiculous to claim incompatibility between religion and science."

Contrary to your assertion, science is fundamentally incompatible with religion in the sense that it only accepts natural explanations for phenomenon. Religion fundamentally asserts a supernatural explanation. This incompatibility is a tautology. If you believe one, you can't believe the other without being hypocritical.

This, of course, doesn't mean that people can't find a way to make science and religion compatible in their minds. That's a whole different kind of "compatibility." Try not to confuse the two. I even mention in my original post that people are quite good at rationalizing the two in their minds -- this doesn't mean the rationalization has a valid logical or scientific basis.

Quote :

"SaabTurbo:You are claiming that religion is here to explain things that science can't explain. What you mean is that when you can't explain something you just make shit up."

Exactly. This way of doing things is fundamentally unscientific.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 8:01 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

4/20/2006 7:59:39 PM

Do they have Jesseph presenting the ID side?

I'd like to see it if he was even though he's an atheist. He's always given things a fair hearing in class despite not being a belieiver.

4/20/2006 8:23:21 PM

did anybody go to this thing?

i wore my flying spaghetti monster t-shirt.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 9:59 PM. Reason : fsm.]

4/20/2006 9:59:22 PM

i was there, but i unfortunately missed it. where were you sitting?

4/20/2006 11:01:15 PM

Quote :

"falsifiability is a stupid way to define science"

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

4/21/2006 12:44:42 AM

Quote :

"Do they have Jesseph presenting the ID side? I'd like to see it if he was even though he's an atheist. He's always given things a fair hearing in class despite not being a belieiver."

he presented the evolution side and probably presented the best points out of all the panelists

4/21/2006 12:50:40 AM

^^got any argument to why its a particularly good way to define science?

or are you just going jesus fucking christ and acting like what I said was crazy cause so many people buy into that lame definition?

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 1:32 AM. Reason : Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.]

4/21/2006 1:25:55 AM

god damn it

my source: A FUCKING DICTIONARY AND WIKIPEDIA

Science -- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Falsifiability -- In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability, contingency, and defeasibility are roughly equivalent terms referring to the property of empirical statements that they must admit of logical counterexamples.

Science and philosophy of science define falsifiability as, in essence, the ability to answer a question.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE. YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT DEFINING SCIENCE AS A FIELD WHICH ANSWERS FALSIFIABLE QUESTIONS WITH AN EMPIRICAL INQUIRY IS STUPID. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SCIENCE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHICH CANNOT BE ANSWERED THROUGH EMPIRICAL METHODS? FURTHERMORE ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SCIENCE SHOULD TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHICH CANNOT BE VERIFIED OR ANSWERED BY ---ANY--- METHOD?

YOU CANNOT SERIOUSLY BE A PART OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Motherfuckers like you are the reason I'm so fucking smug

I'm a dude of average intelligence who enjoys learning

When surrounded by willfully ignorant people such as yourself, it makes me look fucking trascendent

Why are you trying to engage in an actual discussion when you obviously have no comprehension of the terms? JESUS

I'm on my last fucking nerve with dumb shit like this, especially after spending 7+ pages in the soap box trying to coach idiots into understanding what falsifiability means when they could simply LOOK IT THE FUCK UP

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 2:15 AM. Reason : YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GIVE ME A FUCKING STROKE]

4/21/2006 2:01:44 AM

lol, this is some funny shit

you have no fucking clue what you are talking about and are acting smug about it,

Its nice that you can use a fucking dictionary and wiki but maybe you should try actually reading karl popper or learing a few things about the philosophy of science


Here is a good simple article that is a criticism of the principle of falsifiability so maybe you can get some idea of where Im coming from.

Quote :

"Finding the flaw in falsifiability Critical Point: December 2002 Karl Popper's "principle of falsifiability" is one of the few philosophical ideas that physicists regularly mention. But science is far more complex than it suggests, says Robert P Crease As a philosopher of science, I should honour my field's heroes, especially those recognized by outsiders. I should, in particular, cherish those whose doctrines are understood and valued by scientists themselves. Thus, 2002 should have found me busy celebrating the centenary of the birth of Karl Popper. However, I was unenthusiastic. Popper, who died in 1994, is hailed on one Web page as "the most important philosopher of science since Francis Bacon" (1561­-1626). Cosmologist Frank Tipler has called Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery "the most important book of its century". Popper's views strongly shaped the ideas of art historian Ernst Gombrich, and his ideas are cited in a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court, Daubert versus Dow Pharmaceutical, on the legal procedures for the admission of scientific expert testimony in court. Popper is also the only philosopher of science who is a household name among scientists. Most can state the essentials of his chief teaching ­ the "principle of falsifiability". This is the idea that science progresses by "conjectures and refutations" and not (as Bacon suggested) through "inductive generalizations", in which one generalizes on the basis of a sample. Popper, in other words, thought that a theory cannot be proved right, only wrong. A theory becomes scientific by exposing itself to the possibility of being proved incorrect. This principle seems to solve at a stroke what philosophers of science call the problem of demarcation, or how to draw the line between science and non-science. "The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability," wrote Popper in Conjectures and Refutations in 1963. Einstein's relativity theory, for example, is scientific, while astrology, Marxism, psychoanalysis and new-age systems are not. The problem with such dogmas and ideologies, for Popperians, is not that they cannot be confirmed, but that they find confirmation everywhere. They are unscientific because they do not offer themselves up to potential refutation. Popper's principle is beloved by crusaders against junk- and pseudo-science, for it simplifies demarcation. But, however attractive Popper's falsifiability principle might sound, it is not good philosophy of science. Describing science neither in practice... The history of science is replete with examples that show Popper's principle to be wrong. Consider the scientific community's response to an experiment that the physicist Dayton Miller conducted in 1925. Miller attempted to repeat Albert Michelson and Edward Morley's famous experiment that showed that the speed of light is constant, regardless of the velocity of the source ­ a result that lies at the foundation of Einstein's theory of relativity. Miller, however, found a slight difference in speed. He reported this result to a meeting of the American Physical Society (APS), and interpreted it as a refutation of Einstein's theory. But was it? The APS's members did not think so. Hundreds of other experiments agreed with Michelson and Morley's work, and relativity was already tightly woven into contemporary science. Evidently, a gut feeling was telling the sceptical professionals that something was amiss with Miller's results. Miller did find some champions. One was the Soviet academician A K Timiriazev, who was seeking to destroy Einstein's influence among Soviet colleagues. William Broad and Nicholas Wade, meanwhile, have argued that scientists should have taken Miller's apparent falsification more seriously. In their 1983 book Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud in Science, they looked at why the APS audience refused to consider Miller's work as a refutation of Einstein. According to Broad and Wade, who are journalists, the physicists' refusal was evidence of incompetence and unprofessional conduct. "[T]he audience", they write, "should instantly have abandoned the theory or at least assigned it to provisional status." But to have suspended Einstein's achievement because of a single contrary experiment would have been irrational and unscientific. It was the ideologues ­ those with antiscientific axes to grind ­ who were insisting that a theory should be tossed out because of a falsification. The principle of falsifiability can thus promote a damaging image of science. For even newspaper accounts of routine scientific work can turn up discrepancies between Popper's picture and actual practice, implying that scientists are bunglers and frauds. ...nor in theory Popper, I know, would say that we should pay close attention to claimed results, such as Miller's, because they might be falsifications. And Popper knew that claimed falsifications are not necessarily real. The principle of falsifiability was not meant to be a description or a "recipe" for science. For him, the falsifiability criterion was not itself falsifiable. It is a methodological principle ­ a philosophical test or model of what science would look like if reconstructed in logical terms. But here, too, it fails. Theoretical "guesses" ­ and experiments to test them ­ are based on assumptions that we inherit from the entire past history of science. What shows up in the laboratory may not merely confirm or falsify the guesses, but rather call into question the background assumptions from which the guesses arise, forcing us to review and rethink the assumptions In this extremely important interpretative process, a scientist must judge what is reliable and promising, and what is not. This is why great scientists are often people of strong purpose, whose very obtuseness and reluctance to be distracted by contrary empirical evidence in this interpretative process is a source of their success. The critical point Science is not a robotic process of conjecture and refutation. It involves the ability to call into question inherited assumptions that are elements of our background framework, thereby opening up possibilities that could not have been foreseen at the start. What we do in laboratories is both inquiry into nature and self-inquiry. Those efforts put our guesses about nature to the test and force us to reinterpret the assumptions on which these guesses are made. It is tempting to seek a simple single principle with which we can grasp the essence of science and toss out all else. Unfortunately, science is too complicated for that."

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 2:21 AM. Reason : http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/12/2/1]

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 2:22 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2006 2:21:25 AM

^^Why don't you take the philosophy of science class that NCSU offers? Popper's theory of falsifiability has problems. There's certainly no consensus on it. A much better definition is the one that says science is a scientific process.


I'm sorry you latched on to one philosophy buzz word and think that it's the final word on what science is. (and don't misunderstand, it's important to consider Popper's work when trying to answer the question of "What is science?", but it's not the terminal point of the discussion. Furthermore, you can whip the ID argument, regardless.)


[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 2:29 AM. Reason : I guess you chose to ignore all the criticism mentioned on wikipedia, too]

4/21/2006 2:22:52 AM

For some reason you guys have decided that things can only be falsifiable through direct observation

This is untrue

Not to mention -- you can never prove something to be true, because of problems with induction

Therefore, you can only prove things false. Anything indicating the correctness of a theory simply corroborates it. If you cannot in any way, theoretically or otherwise in some way physically possible in our universe falsify a theory, then it is not a scientific theory. If you cannot possibly disprove something under any theoretical circumstances, the question becomes meaningless.

It's gibberish.

Quote :

"The history of science is replete with examples that show Popper's principle to be wrong. Consider the scientific community's response to an experiment that the physicist Dayton Miller conducted in 1925. Miller attempted to repeat Albert Michelson and Edward Morley's famous experiment that showed that the speed of light is constant, regardless of the velocity of the source ­ a result that lies at the foundation of Einstein's theory of relativity. Miller, however, found a slight difference in speed. He reported this result to a meeting of the American Physical Society (APS), and interpreted it as a refutation of Einstein's theory."

This shit is irrelevant and you are painfully fucking retarded. People abusing the concept of falsifiability is not a refutation of the strengths inherent in the methodology of science.

If you cannot answer a question, then accumulating any sort of evidence in an attempt to do so makes no fucking sense. In fact, my brain almost hemorrhaged typing that.

The fact of the matter is, if I come up with a theory which nobody under any circumstances can test, verify, or observe, then it is not scientific.

In short: falsifiability isn't the end-all-be-all definition of science but it's definately a great way to weed out what ISNT science. Scientific matters must be falsifiable, but it's not sufficient for it to JUST be falsifiable. Plenty of shit is falsifiable but probably not good science (because it lacks good explanatory power)

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 2:44 AM. Reason : .]

4/21/2006 2:38:51 AM

Look I'm going to cut to the chase, simplify this, and wash my hands of it

I've done too much crusading for this, too much ramming of my head against the wall and I shouldn't waste my time on it any longer

Falsifiability + common sense = good science.

Things can be falsifiable and completely irrelevant. Thus, if science always asks questions that are relevant and produces theories with explanatory power -- and the theories are falsifiable, then it's doing a good job.

One thing I fucking hate about philosophy sometimes is the bullshit counter example that breaks up a perfectly good theory/system. "BUT YOU CAN ASK IF A HOT PINK DOG EXISTS AND SURE THAT'S FALSIFIABLE BUT IS THAT GOOD SCIENCE" jesus fucking god shut up

4/21/2006 2:55:57 AM

you cannot purely scientifically disprove creationism.


that doesn't mean it belongs in a science classroom, as there is no scientific evidence to support it either.

4/21/2006 3:05:31 AM

hmm, I was expecting to come back to this thread and find something worth responding but for all of your arrogance and love of falsifiability you cant even come up with a silly falsifiable question:

Quote :

"BUT YOU CAN ASK IF A HOT PINK DOG EXISTS AND SURE THAT'S FALSIFIABLE BUT IS THAT GOOD SCIENCE"

thats not falsifiable, you should have went with something like "all humans have noses" as a silly falsifiable question. (you can only confirm it by seeing a hot pink dog, you cant prove it false by not seeing a hot pink dog, replace hot pink dog with god and you might pick up on why)

4/21/2006 4:55:44 AM

Yeah, you're right. A better way to have put that would have been like you put it. That's why I retreated to bed, I knew I was about to start making errors like that

What I was actually getting at would be something to the extent of "All dogs are not hot pink". General statement, and all you'd have to do is find a dog that's hot pink to prove it wrong. >.< I made a semantic blunder, but I think you were overly harsh and pedantic and I was simultaneously off-base.

There are ridiculous cases like that, though. Cases where things are falsifiable but not good science -- but a dash of common sense always redirects the matter back into science. This is the problem with too much theorycrafting in philosophy -- sometimes people get way the fuck out there and believe that every option is of equal weight due to form.

Either way you slice it, your claim that defining science by falsifiability hasn't been properly backed up by you. You threw in a cheesy appeal to authority (which didn't work, and was more of a collection of anecdotes explaining why patience and verification of results are important) and have nitpicked some of my points, but where is your point? The only thing stupid here was your point -- even if falsifiability alone is a slightly outdated way of classifying science (for reasons I've already described), claiming that defining it in those bounds is somehow "stupid" is like me claiming that Newton was an idiot for being so far wrong.

Edit:

-Something exists- is not falsifiable because you need to prove a negative (go around and prove that something does not exist, which would involve scouring the entire universe extremely thoroughly which is functionally impossible). I did fuck that up, and should have said "there is not a dog that is pink". It's not too hard to see how I fucked up and said the other thing though while being careless and desperately wanting to sleep but I do admit that what I said was pretty stupid and obviously wrong, and it's not like I subscribe to that view :-P

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 7:53 AM. Reason : .]

4/21/2006 7:36:47 AM

Quote :

"Why is it that some are predicting the extinction of so many species, instead of the evolution? Isn't environmental pressures one of the driving forces of speciation? "

favorite quote

4/21/2006 8:44:10 AM

so, who won?

4/21/2006 11:43:49 AM

espn.com

4/21/2006 12:05:57 PM

Quote :

"falsifiability is a stupid way to define science especially considering that it would not allow the theory of evolution to be called science (and Karl Popper pointed that out himself)"

evolution IS falsifiable. god is not. case dismissed.

4/21/2006 12:10:54 PM

Quote :

"so, who won?"

was jesseph his usual overcaffeinated self?
was van dyke charming and clueless?
was anyone really persuaded of anything?

4/21/2006 12:36:07 PM

Quote :

"evolution IS falsifiable. god is not. case dismissed."

dingdingding we have a winner

4/21/2006 1:42:52 PM

case closed. brilliant.

4/21/2006 8:53:38 PM

case should be closed but we know it isnt

idiot religious zealots will still try to push this shit into science classrooms

fucking bollocks

4/21/2006 9:00:11 PM

Quote :

"What I was actually getting at would be something to the extent of "All dogs are not hot pink". General statement, and all you'd have to do is find a dog that's hot pink to prove it wrong."

Can you prove without a doubt if you see a "hot pink" dog that is really hot pink. What if the observers were color blind and the dog was really red? After all dogs apparently see in black and white so isnt color just relative? Therefore you cant even prove it to be false according to your theory.

4/21/2006 11:57:30 PM

Not true.

Color is produced by a wavelength, interpreted by our brains. Even though you might argue that what I see as hot pink might be secretly equivalent to your experience of emerald green, we both agree that the color is "hot pink" because we both interpret the same wavelength.

The wavelength of the light reflected by the dog would be the determining factor of whether it is "hot pink" or not. This is a testable, quantifiable property of the dog.

4/22/2006 10:52:28 AM

^however it does take assumptions based on previous ideas such as wavelength and our ability to "test" to see what wavelength it is. Therefore when you "prove" something to be false such as "there are no pink dogs" just because you found a pink dog arent you relying on properties of science that can not be proven. To falsely prove the statement "there are no pink dogs" uses information based on UNPROVEN methods. According to falsifiability wavelength and lights color cannot be proven true, just proven false. Therefore to falsely prove "there are no pink dogs" you would have to prove the properties of wavelength and color of light which according to falsifiability cannot be done.

4/22/2006 11:34:26 AM

I suppose you can argue that all of our perceptions are false, but your argument has no explanatory power. What I do know is that my perceptions are accurate -- accurate AT LEAST in the capacity to ensure my survival.

We have ideas and internal structures which represent the outside Universe. We can only provide corroborative evidence that they are accurate indirectly (that is, performing an action and observing the result -- a process once again subject to our perceptions).

Sure -- the Universe does not equal our perceptions, but our perceptions equal our reality. Studying this reality through empirical methods is what science is. Science therefore gives us plenty of insight into our reality. It also gives us insight into the intersection of our reality and the actual Universe, though it's beyond our capability to really know how flush the two are.

Your argument is against scientific thought itself. In order to undermine scientific thought, you should explain why it lacks explanatory power, and why another methodology would provide better explanations.

4/22/2006 11:43:37 AM

falsifiability leaves no means for anything to be proven because to be disproven you have to rely on something proven, so I dont see its place in "science".


My "methodology" is that a sovereign God controls the mechanical and physical properties of the world. Thus putting me on the ID side of the debate.

4/22/2006 12:01:22 PM

Quote :

"falsifiability leaves no means for anything to be proven because to be disproven you have to rely on something proven, so I dont see its place in "science"."

You don't have to rely on anything that's "proven" because nothing can be proven in science. Theories can be formed and accepted as closest to true as long as they're corroborated and not disproven. Once a theory is no longer logically consistent with what we know about reality, it cannot be accepted as accurate anymore.

Science is supposed to explain our reality.

Quote :

"My "methodology" is that a sovereign God controls the mechanical and physical properties of the world. Thus putting me on the ID side of the debate."

There shouldn't be a debate. ID does not deserve the distinction of intellectual discourse in a scientific discussion. It is not science. In order to show how ID deserves any distinction at all, you should demonstrate how it has any level of explanatory power. ID is a textbook case of religious zealots scrambling to keep their ideas relevant in the modern world. It is the creation of people who cannot let go of antiquated ideas ingrained into them in their formative years, created in the hope that somehow their primitive view of the world might actually be corroborated by the truth instead of cast down.

[Edited on April 22, 2006 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2006 12:12:13 PM

just pm each other and make out already.

4/22/2006 12:28:15 PM