G
- Status
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
My fields are biology and research psychology. I was under the impression that you were asking me to “write a little more on this” and that’s exactly what I did - I wrote a *little *more on this. I can’t fit everything I know about science into a post and I only know the tip of the iceberg. Science’s job is not to prove - it is to attempt to explain phenomena.
And that shows that there are at least two possibilities, doesn’t it? So which is right? Both? Neither? Are there any other possibilities?
That is exactly what I’m saying. There is always uncertainty in science. Always. Using terms like “roughly spherical” makes me feel very uncomfortable. Do you think it’s been proven that the earth is “roughly spherical?” Do you use “roughly spherical” as your operational definition?
It doesn’t matter if every single subject in the experimental group who had a headache took aspirin and reported that the headache went away and every single subject in the control group reported their headache did not go away… It isn’t proof. There could be confounding variables such as experimenter bias, an inability to choose subjects for the control and experimental groups randomly (although larger n’s are useful to alleviate this problem they don’t make it go away). How can anyone know all the factors going on? There’s the obvious one of presence of headache and degree of severity of headache (how does one objectively measure another person’s pain level?), gender, age, ethnic background, marital status, health (general health, physical fitness, presence of illness within the last month, last three months, last six months, last year), SES, geographic area (where do the subjects live and where is the research being conducted in terms of elevation, etc.), height, weight, what subjects had for breakfast, if subjects ate breakfast at all, other meals, snacks, if liquids have been ingested, what type of liquids have been ingested, whether subjects need to urinate and feel more stress because of that, presence of caffeine, amounts of blood glucose, amounts of blood amino acids (every single one), unidentified stressors, identified stressors which may have different results health-wise in different subjects, presence of other medications, plasma amounts of these other medications, subjects’ ability to reduce headache by relaxation and biofeedback and whether this is conscious or subconscious), subjects lying about medications or any of the factors listed above, subjects lying to gain perceived approval from the researchers (such as stating one’s headache is gone when there was no headache to begin with or there is still a headache), air pollution, etc. etc. etc. You can’t get rid of all the confounding factors no matter how hard you try. Why do you think so many researchers use male pups? It’s because at least gender is controlled and males are not nearly as complicated as females physiologically, and there are too many confounding factors in human subjects.
Using double-blind methods help, but they absolutely do not ever, ever, ever remove all confounding factors. I believe I mentioned repeating research as producing more evidence. But even that can’t *prove *that taking aspirin makes a headache go away.
Of course not! Why would that be any evidence at all? Patients died all the time. Maybe they died because of the health problem that landed them in an OR in the first place. Most of the doctors didn’t wash their hands so how could they prove that their patients died because they didn’t wash their hands? Patients died all the time, from different causes. Non-washing of hands certainly wasn’t the only factor! Patients die in hospitals. They still do, even though surgeons scrub. Nosocomial infections are a major problem in hospitals and the fact that they still are such a problem is an indication that there is still something going on (and perhaps hundreds of things going on) in the hospital environment, causing patient illness and/or death that is still unidentified.
I will not reply to any post with responses inserted into my quote.
-----continued in next post-----
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
-----continuation of last post-----
Why are you saying that you’re not trying to trap me? Why do you find it necessary to add that to your post? It’s obvious to me that you are trying to trap me and I don’t appreciate that. I’ve tried to leave this forum for health reasons and I’ve been asked to come back and this is what I find - obvious entrapment. I’m too ill to do this and I refuse to jeopardize my health anymore.
If you wanted me to answer a specific question you should have asked me that in your original post. I would have been happy to share whatever I have been taught. I’m confused about the following statement : “Science is not reducible to statistics but I would grant that uncertainty is always part of science in that humility is part of the discipline.” Why did you write that? I’ve never seen anything like that before in anything to do with science. I’ve never stated that science is reducible to statistics. Of course it isn’t! That’s just part of science.
I will not reply to any post with responses inserted into my quote.
Yes, there is a correlation and a significant one. That does not equal proof. Scientific method does not allow for proving that smoking cigarettes causes cancer.
For you and the vast majority of scientists a significant result is certainly workable. I thought I made that clear. However, without absolute, 100 percent certainty, there is no proof. It’s still a theory. What in the world is wrong with a theory? Why do you insist on proof?It does. I guess the only thing that would be helpful for me to understand is rather simple–I hope. Please define the term ‘proof’ or ‘prove (v)’ in your own words. I’m not trying to trap you I really want to know what you mean. It seems that you mean that ‘proof’ intends an explanation that is 100% true with no possible other explanation having any further ground to fit the data. For me–and the vast majority of scientists–99.9(999… whatever)% is more than good enough.
Why are you saying that you’re not trying to trap me? Why do you find it necessary to add that to your post? It’s obvious to me that you are trying to trap me and I don’t appreciate that. I’ve tried to leave this forum for health reasons and I’ve been asked to come back and this is what I find - obvious entrapment. I’m too ill to do this and I refuse to jeopardize my health anymore.
If you wanted me to answer a specific question you should have asked me that in your original post. I would have been happy to share whatever I have been taught. I’m confused about the following statement : “Science is not reducible to statistics but I would grant that uncertainty is always part of science in that humility is part of the discipline.” Why did you write that? I’ve never seen anything like that before in anything to do with science. I’ve never stated that science is reducible to statistics. Of course it isn’t! That’s just part of science.
I will not reply to any post with responses inserted into my quote.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
You know, I disagree with just about everything you write, but that scan in your signature is really cool. I just wanted you to know that. I really like it.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I think you’re right, Ed. I think it is Church teaching.
I will not reply to any post with responses inserted into my quote.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I saw this quote when I was reading about Father George Coyne, former head of the Vatican Observatory, in a different context and it seemed apt here.
‘Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be… If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.’
‘Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be… If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.’
N
NHInsider
Guest
As I have attempted to point out with quotations from Church documents, the actual teaching of the Church on this subject (human origins) is much more nuanced that this statement would indicate. Those inconvenient citations have been completely ignored in the scores of posts that have followed.
Catholics are permitted to believe in a 6-day creation and singular Adam and Eve. They are not obligated to believe it. They are permitted to believe in an evolutionary process of creation, in which God intervened to create humanity in the divine image, a process which is described in poetic language in the beginning of Genesis, where “Adam” means exactly what it says - “man” - and Eve means “mother of the living,” just as the text says it does. They are not obligated to believe that, either.
Ed asked me if I’d read Communion and Stewardship. I have - and I recommend it to everyone.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It would also be a very appropriate topic for a philosophy class, of which there should be a lot more in high schools.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Indeed. Is philosophy taught in any high schools? Any public ones (that’s not Boston Latin)?
G
grannymh
Guest
Pardon me, but this is one of my cranky mornings.
“more nuanced” ? ? ?
There is a flat out scientific difference between creation of the physical/material universe and the two sole first parents of the human species. To truly understand this difference and why Catholics are obligated to believe in two sole parents of the human species, Adam and Eve (or whomever you wish to call Jane and John Doe) do check of Genesis 1: 26 - 28 as it is interpreted by the Catholic Church.
Regarding the posted quote. "Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.”
I understand most of the many ways today’s theologians can nuance – so what is really being implied in this quote which is really about science and not Catholic Doctrine regarding Adam and Eve? Or is my one opened eye missing some nuance? If so, please elaborate.
granny definitely needs her morning Pepsi.
Blessings,
:coffeeread:
B
buffalo
Guest
Empirical science in the classroom only.
Metaphysics, ID, evolution etc. in mandatory philosophy class.
E
edwest2
Guest
Father Coyne is the current religious source of choice for the secular press. He has deviated from Church teaching, and I do not find his opinions to be of any value.
God bless,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Evolution, gravity, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics: these are all scientific theories. If one of them has no place in the science classroom, neither do any of the others.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Sorry, I think you misclassified; evolution being… you know… science and not philosophy.
That said there is a fundamental theological flaw in ID in that it supposes a god externally related to the universe which is indistinguishable from aliens, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Shiva.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, he has not.
E
edwest2
Guest
Speaking generally, the only reason a more nuanced explanation exists is to show that the Church does in fact have something to say about science and that it does in fact matter to the secular world. However, “divine intervention” is not a scientific concept and will be immediately rejected ny nontheists as part of any scientific explanation.
I don’t understand for a microsecond why it is important to translate Adam as simply man. We continue to use phrases today like, “until man developed tools” to describe all of mankind. And let’s go to Romans 5:12
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
“by one man” It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Why is that a flaw? Science cannot venture into philosophy. Who the designer is is for philosophers to handle.
ID is simply positing that there is a designer.
Empirical science - observable, testable and predictable.
Is evo observable?
Is it testable?
Is it predictable?
Now IDvolution takes the science and works it in to philosophy. IDvolution does not have this limitation of science.
E
edwest2
Guest
“When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.”
footnote: “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J., in Der Spiegel, no. 52, December 22, 2000.”
Chance or Purpose by Cardinal Schoenborn, page 167.
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Think about it…
B
buffalo
Guest
- Status