Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I know how this thread is going to end… With either Alexey or Peter admitting that they were wrong the whole time and the other one was right.

If I had to make a guess, it will be Alexey and he will become a born-again Baptist.

[alexey]

What is it? What is your evidence and why does that level of evidence reach the level of "justified confidence" and not faith?

This question suggests that you are seeing "justified confidence" as a step towards "faith". That means we are not using these terms to refer to the same thing.

Agreement of terms is necessary for discussion... At a minimum, I need to distinguish when you are talking about a mindset of embracing an idea with evidence and embracing an idea without evidence.

I tried to refer to the former as "justified confidence" and to the latter as "faith", but you do not seem on board with that.

The evolutionary process is not circular. Your logic is circular where your argument is not just evolution.

When you say "circular logic", are you combining my position that we can get principles from experience with your position that principles are required a priori?

Here is what I am missing from you:

1) Clear and concise statement against my view that science emerged via evolution and does not require assumptions.

2) Clear and concise argument why science requires assumptions.

If you cannot summarize your points in one or two sentences each, please do not bother.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo - I'm not sure I get the joke, but maybe that is because the joke is on me.

religion = dogmatic

science = empirical

philosophy = rational

religion = the kids believe in Santa (faith)

science = the kids don't believe in Santa (facts )

philosophy = the kids won't stop asking questions (logic)

Religion has one set of abstractions and science another. Philosophy is the critic of abstractions.

I hate to make you kill your joke by explaining it, but what I want to know is how philosophy becomes playing with poo.

Philosophy as play I get, but as playing with poo, I don't know, unless you mean the abstractions of both religion and science are poo. . .

 

 

Perfect reply from one slighted demographic.  

 

 

 

The joke wasn't intended to be "on you", though you may have made it so (just a little  ). You may have personalized the joke and taken it too serious as an attack on a pet love. One reason I didn't post originally was avoiding someone taking it too seriously and then "critique" it that way.

 

 

soc--I share that love of that same pet as you should know---I have taught it, briefly (and only adequately), and have shamelessly pimped my fave site since I arrived here-

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

 

-nevertheless, you may have unintentionally gave my joke more cred than i intended  with your reply. <old devil smiley>

 

But yeah, while classical logic's charms never wane with me, a fair share of "philosophy arguing" among many aficionados (I do not include you) does remind of kids playing with their poo at times.

 

Sort of a self absorbed fascination with what they can excrete, regardless of usefulness, or even appeal to most.

 

Well known philosophers have offered similar observations in moments of self-deprecating humor--but the metaphor breaks down as poo is still useful as fertilizer, unlike much philosophy dialogue. 

 

See? I can't hep mesef.

 

I tend to poke at anything from time to time, even the stuff that's as close as I can get to having my own "scared cows."

 

Or gored oxen if you swing that way.

 

Does any belief system claim a special role for horsies  (not unicorns ) by the way?

 

 

 

 

 

(back to work--everyone relax, no more dumass distractions from me) 

[s0crates]

Ah okay. Touché. Point taken.

[Jumbo]

love ya, broheme

[PeterMP]

This question suggests that you are seeing "justified confidence" as a step towards "faith". That means we are not using these terms to refer to the same thing.

Agreement of terms is necessary for discussion... At a minimum, I need to distinguish when you are talking about a mindset of embracing an idea with evidence and embracing an idea without evidence.

I tried to refer to the former as "justified confidence" and to the latter as "faith", but you do not seem on board with that.

I've ALREADY (essentially) stated that I'm not on board with that and even EXPLAINED why in this thread MULTIPLE times, including in the post that I quoted above.

I even wrote a post directly to address the meaning of the word faith in THIS THREAD.

When you say "circular logic", are you combining my position that we can get principles from experience with your position that principles are required a priori?

Here is what I am missing from you:

1) Clear and concise statement against my view that science emerged via evolution and does not require assumptions.

2) Clear and concise argument why science requires assumptions.

If you cannot summarize your points in one or two sentences each, please do not bother.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

[s0crates]

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Good pull. I think that is right.

[techboy]

If you cannot summarize your points in one or two sentences each, please do not bother.

Is this going to be a new ES rule? This had better not be a new ES rule.

Jumbo, please tell me this isn't going to be a new ES rule.

Please.

[PeterMP]

Good pull. I think that is right.

It is the top hit when I put assumptions underlie science into google.

 

It isn't like it took a lot of hard work!

I mean it isn't like somebody that wanted to take 2 minutes to educate themselves instead of just looking for an argument couldn't have easily found it themselves.

 

**EDIT**

I was editing some text and decided to break it out into its own post!

[alexey]

...

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

How did we get these assumptions?

[PeterMP]

How did we get these assumptions?

Are you admitting they are assumptions?

 

If you have a point, make it.  I have not interest or intention of playing 20 questions with you.

 

You think that site is wrong, make that argument.

 

You seem to generally feel like that you need somebody else involved to make your arguments.  You are welcome to lay them out by yourself.

[alexey]

Peter,

A few pages back I made a point that the way you think about it - science being based on assumptions, etc., is precise enough for most applications.

However, it does not support claims that science is based on faith or belief in those assumptions.

Your view fails when it gets you to imagine arming yourself with assumptions and going out to explore the world, pretending you are establishing a radically different relationship with the universe.

I can call them assumptions if you like, as long as you do not run away with that. This discussion is about how we get them and how we hold them.

[PeterMP]

alexey, the idea of faith and justified confidence is exactly what I'm talking about meaning the ambiguity of words to play word games.  The meaning of the word faith is somewhat amibigious.  Your ideas don't capture all of the meanings of faith (and I'm not honestly sure that it captures ANY of them, but I'm not going to have that argument).

 

What you mean is that science does not require a belief without evidence.  That's being precise.

 

BE PRECISE!

 

Of course, neither does a belief in god.

 

And then you lose your distinction, which is why you want to have the argument and shoe horn a belief in god into one word and then claim that science doesn't fit.

 

And the end result is word games because you don't really want to be percise.

[alexey]

Peter,

I am not the one insisting that we use the word faith. It is not precise enough for me to use.

Our recent discussions started with you insisting on using that word on me.

I would never use the word faith to refer to any idea I accept as true. I would welcome it if you were to stop using that word as well, unless you were talking about yourself.

God is just fine in a conversation about evidence. Let's talk about it. Let's discuss the evidence.

If I were to precisely define the word faith, i would say faith is the end of conversation, a way to stop further inquiry, it's what you use when you run out out of reasons...

[s0crates]

Peter,

I can call them assumptions if you like, as long as you do not run away with that. This discussion is about how we get them and how we hold them.

I agree with this. Science assumes certain things, and the question is precisely how we know those things. It's an exceedingly tricky question.

I think you have acknowledged all that, and you have given a plausible answer. I still have my concerns about that answer, but I thought the issue of scientific assumptions was settled.

The question now is where the assumptions come from, I thought, not if science makes them. You have given an answer: the assumptions emerged via an evolutionary process (life first, then principles).

I think that answer has merit, although I'm not entirely satisfied by it. The answer explains the how but not the why, it says where the principles come from, but not why they are justified.

There may be an answer to that (you were saying something about a coherent belief system supported by ever-increasing feedback). I would like to hear more here, but somehow we got stuck on a question I thought was settled.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

I am not the one insisting that we use the word faith. It is not precise enough for me to use.

Our recent discussions started with you insisting on using that word on me.

I would never use the word faith to refer to any idea I accept as true. I would welcome it if you were to stop using that word as well, unless you were talking about yourself.

God is just fine in a conversation about evidence. Let's talk about it. Let's discuss the evidence.

If I were to precisely define the word faith, i would say faith is the end of conversation, a way to stop further inquiry, it's what you use when you run out out of reasons...

 

Really, please quote the post where I insisted that you use word faith?

 

In any thread at any time, when talking about science please quote the post where I said you had to use the word faith.

 

Are you going to next claim that I made you start this thread:

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/373856-slate-no-faith-in-science/

 

"No Faith in Science"

[alexey]

...

I think that answer has merit, although I'm not entirely satisfied by it. The answer explains the how but not the why, it says where the principles come from, but not why they are justified.

There may be an answer to that (you were saying something about a coherent belief system supported by ever-increasing feedback). Is like to hear more here, but somehow we got stuck on a questioning thought was settled.

I would look at pragmatic/utilitarian justifications, more over they seem already baked into the evolutionary process.

We keep going in circles with Peter because be really wants to say that I have faith

Really, please quote the post where I insisted that you use word faith?

...

Do you not insist that science requires faith or that I have some kind of faith?

[PeterMP]

We keep going in circles with Peter because be really wants to say that I have faith

Do you not insist that science requires faith or that I have some kind of faith?

I insist believing in science in terms of using it to justify actions requires a belief for which there is no proof.

 

In some cases, some people's actions might not seem justified based on the strength of the evidence.

 

(i.e. people may act like the evidence is very good, while some people might not think the evidence is very good.)

 

I further think that matches some of the definitions of faith.

 

I'll take it you couldn't find that post!

[alexey]

I insist believing in science in terms of using it to justify actions requires a belief for which there is no proof.

Some people may say that sun coming up for billions of years is proof that it will come up again tomorrow.

You do not accept that as proof, right?

[PeterMP]

Some people may say that sun coming up for billions of years is proof that it will come up again tomorrow.

You do not accept that as proof, right?

I don't accept that you know the sun has been coming up for billions of years to accept it as proof of something else.

 

That hasn't been proven.

 

You are trying to build "knowledge" of something as proof (evidence) of something else, but your "knowledge" hasn't been proven.

 

You are trying to use something that there is only evidence for as evidence of something else and call the whole thing proof.

 

It is bad logic!

 

And you apply bad logic to things related to science and build very troublesome arguments about what science is and what it can do.

[alexey]

... 

It is bad logic!

...

Does this mean:

 

I insist believing in science in terms of using it to justify actions requires a belief for which there is no (logical) proof.

[PeterMP]

Does this mean:

 

No.

 

Saying that something has been proven which has not been proven and then asserting that is proof for another things is bad logic.

[alexey]

No.

Saying that something has been proven which has not been proven and then asserting that is proof for another things is bad logic.

I did not write that it was proven.

Ok let's say you are sending a probe to Mars. You really want to get one thing measured right, so you send 3 different probes that measure it in different ways. All 3 readings come back the same. Is that a logical, good enough proof to use?

[PeterMP]

I agree with this. Science assumes certain things, and the question is precisely how we know those things. It's an exceedingly tricky question.

I think you have acknowledged all that, and you have given a plausible answer. I still have my concerns about that answer, but I thought the issue of scientific assumptions was settled.

The question now is where the assumptions come from, I thought, not if science makes them. You have given an answer: the assumptions emerged via an evolutionary process (life first, then principles).

I think that answer has merit, although I'm not entirely satisfied by it. The answer explains the how but not the why, it says where the principles come from, but not why they are justified.

There may be an answer to that (you were saying something about a coherent belief system supported by ever-increasing feedback). I would like to hear more here, but somehow we got stuck on a question I thought was settled.

 

I'm not sure of your point here.

 

If we are willing to assume that evolution is true, which requires that we assume that the assumptions that underlie science are true, I don't see another reasonable argument.

 

Science is the result of evolution.

 

If you are not willing to make the above assumptions, then you have issues.

[alexey]

..

If we are willing to assume that evolution is true, which requires that we assume that the assumptions that underlie science are true, I don't see another reasonable argument.

...

You seem to suggest that science makes evolution true or that science is the only way to discover evolution.

Evolution is true with or without science. And I'm sure you can imagine other ways of discovering evolution.