Whoaaaaa! take a dekko at this

[reen12]

quote: coyote

Blah, blah, blah.

Support your assertion that Evolution will be a non-entity in 25 years. How, why?

Your supposition is untenable bupkiss.

Philosophy is not science. Philosophers have no business trespassing self indulgent opinions on the validity of scientific method.

Oh, and BTW, you still have not clarified what a “dekko” is.

Good grief!

I believe I’ll leave it - to other readers of this thread - to ‘decipher’
my posts!

quote: reen12

And, BTW, before I switched to Philosophy, I took a gander
at micro-quantitative analysis, micro-qualitative analysis,
physics, calculus and organic chemistry…

and

quote: reen12

“dekko” is British slang for: “a glance” ]

Apparently, “dekko” is based on the Hindustani “dekho.”
[Does *that help?]

If it needs be that I “convey” things more clearly:

I was a SCIENCE MAJOR, to begin with.
[And, less you think that I didn’t know what time of day it was -
in terms of the ‘scientific method’ - at the end of my first
semester, I was 2nd in a class of…near 200. ]

quote: coyote

Philosophers have no business trespassing self indulgent opinions on the validity of scientific method.

Uh…are we clear, now? “Scientific method”/SCIENCE MAJOR.

You know, burettes, beakers, titrations …

And then, of course, there’s “logic.” A specialty of both
science and philosophy. But I don’t want to get in too deep,
and be accused of generating a concept worth ‘bupkiss.’

quote: coyote

Your supposition is untenable bupkiss

Whoaaaa! Both "untenable and “bupkiss” are, happily, in
my vocabulary.

Perhaps the word “gander” gave you difficulty?

quote: coyote

…self indulgent opinions on the validity of scientific method

I implore you: read what I wrote.

quote: coyote

Blah, blah, blah.

Tell me, is that some of that realllly special ‘scientific’
vocabulary, that I missed, in my student days.
Part of the ‘scientific method’, sans doute.

Oh, my sainted aunt!

reen12

 

[jman507]

Sorry I don’t really have much of a background of philosphy, but when it comes to faith it seems that Dawkins has as much as the next person. I mean sometimes it may seem so not so, but often it can be so fundamental that its easy to forget that its there. One may say that he has evidence and this conclusion if very reasonable, but one must have faith that the evidence one is to give is actually what it seems to be. If one wants to use Euclidean geometry one has to take the axioms without proof. I guess it might be one thing to say that it is good for practical use, it is a different thing to say that it is True Geometry.

 

[Redbandito]

coyote:

So you advocate for prayer over medicine?
You advocate for prayer and contemplation over engineering?

How in the world did you derive this meaning from his post? You could only come to this conclusion from his post if you willfully resist being reasonable.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Philosophy is not science.

That’s ironic, since PhD is an abbreviation for “Philosophiae Doctor”

 

[Bishopite]

Le plus ca change, le plus c’est la meme chose.

-The more things change, the more things remain the same.
Vous parlez francais? Je suis né en France! Ma mère est française.

 

[reen12]

quote: Bishopite

Vous parlez francais? Je suis né en France! Ma mère est française

.
Un peu.
Je me plaisir a vous connaitre. :tiphat:

Your mother is French and you were born, in France?
How fortunate for you to be fluent in two languages!

I recall stopping for gas and, needing matches, [outside Montreal]
and saying:
“J’ai besoin des allumettes, s’il vous plait” and feeling
a sense of outrageous triumph! [mispelled, I’m sure,
but, still, full of satisfaction.]
and German pronunciation was greatly facilitated by the nun
who taught same. She was a great teacher, and, after 40
years, I’m still grateful to her.]

I sent a note, [to the sister who was my French teacher],
when she was quite ill, at the end of her life, telling her
how much -a very modest understanding of French -had
enriched life, for me, and thanking her for both her skill
and her patience in teaching me same.

I can understand French, far better than I can speak or
write same. If I understand the context, I get along OK.
But if I tried to read a newspaper, for example, I’d understand
some things, but not others.

As I said, you are blessed, to be fluent in more than
one language.

A bientot!

reen12*

 

[reen12]

[off topic!]

Actually, now that I think of it, 2 years of Latin has stood
me in good stead. The roots of so many words - in
English, French, Spanish, and Italian - are found in same.

[Though, as an adolescent girl - at the time- reviewing Caesar’s escapades
in Gaul, wasn’t as riveting -as it might have been- to scholars of both Latin and history.]

What did* I* care that All Gaul had been divided into 3 parts. ?

Still, it was worth the effort, and same has been oft repaid,
in an appreciation of the beauty of my own language, and that
of others.

e.g. *plasir *[pleasure] connaitre [connotation, connoted, know,
aquaintence.]

Je m’appelle [appellation, in English]

Now, if I could only learn to spell correctly…

[sorry about the off-topic material…thinking aloud…]

reen12

 

[reen12]

Hi, itsjustdave,

I’ve been considering the concept “intellectually compelling.”

In our own time, the erroneous position [IMO] that - only those
phenomena that can be materially verified -may constitute
“compelling evidence” might be challenged, I think,
in the following manner.

quote: reen12, from another thread:

I re-read the account of Moses being given the commandments.
Whether or no this represents, accurately, the sequence of
events, or depicts this event with precision…I sure don’t know.
But I read it and say: something happened, there. [emphasis mine.]

There are other phenomena that* may be* compelling,
intellectually. *
in my example: Moses at Sinai, and the recounting
of that event…however ‘im-precise’ - and all that has
followed, for 3500 years…]

As I say, I’m working on the wording of this concept, and
am not fully satisfied with it, as yet. [For all I know, others
may have already stated this concept with more precision.]

Are you aware of any statement -by Aquinas- that may
address this issue: ‘intellectually compelling’ ?

Thanks, Dave,

reen

Hmmmm…I just thought of something.
Evidence is from the Latin e-video * "through the eyes,
from the eyes, ‘out-of’ the eyes.]
How does this concept: ‘evidence’ - apply to this discussion?
[Not sure I’ve got the Latin precisely correct.]

Nope! Apparently [not to make a pun ] ‘evidence’
comes from the early Latin evidens* “obvious”]
Wellllll, that’s even better.

As in:
It’s obvious [to me…in my assessment] that something
occured at Sinai - according to accounts - and the effect
this had on people’s behavior, for the following 3500 years…

 

[reen12]

itsjustdave,

I re-read one of your posts, above. The following, I think,
pertains to my quest to define “intellectually compelling”:

quote: itsjustdave

But faith is certainly man’s response to evidence. Faith comes from Latin *fides; *akin to Latin *fidere *to trust. One has faith in another normally based upon the evidence of their trustworthiness.

I think that’s what I’m trying to get at, with:

quote: reen12

I re-read the account of Moses being given the commandments.
Whether or no this represents, accurately, the sequence of
events, or depicts this event with precision…I sure don’t know.
But I read it and say: something happened, there. [emphasis mine.]

I trust, in this account. Additionally: that this account is “verifiable” in the sense that a “response” - to this event -
has been carried forward for 3500 years.

Do you have a thought on this “interpretation” on my part?

Thanks,

reen

 

[reen12]

Hi, itsjustdave,

I re-read one of your posts, above. The following, I think,
pertains to my quest to construct a working - and
intellectually ‘acceptable’ - definition of: “intellectually compelling”:

quote: itsjustdave

But faith is certainly man’s response to evidence. Faith comes from Latin *fides; *akin to Latin *fidere *to trust. One has faith in another normally based upon the evidence of their trustworthiness.

I think that’s what I’m trying to get at, with:

quote: reen12

I re-read the account of Moses being given the commandments.
Whether or no this represents, accurately, the sequence of
events, or depicts this event with precision…I sure don’t know.
But I read it and say: something happened, there. [emphasis mine.]

I trust, in this account. Additionally: that this account is “verifiable”
in the sense that a “response” - to this event - has been carried forward
for 3500 years.

Do you have a thought on this “interpretation” on my part?

Thanks,

reen

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Reen12,

I believe that our day to day decisions are made, not because we are convinced by strict scientific or logical proofs, but base upon a “reasonable view.”

For example the late George Wald was a professor of biology, having earned a Doctor of Philosophy in Biology. He was an evolutionist who similarly discussed the “reasonable view” and the “philosophic necessity” inherent in even the strict discipline of science. Dr. Wald wrote:

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a “philosophical necessity.” It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."(Dr. George Wald, “The Origin of Life” Scientific American, 191:46, May 1954).

Science, business, law, economics, medicine, politics, military decision-making, and day-to-day decisions are filled with decisions based upon evidence (obviousness) that may be incomplete and may not be a strict proof, but is either “beyond reasonable doubt” or based upon the “preponderance of evidence.” In fact, there’s a lesser evidentiary standard in law called the “preponderance of evidence” which is use in civil lawsuits which is even less stict than the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of criminal law. Consequently, it is reasonable and I’d assert necessary for people to believe based upon a standard which is less than strict proofs.

Thus, it is reasonable, based upon the preponderance of evidence to believe in a Creator, given what we know of all available knowledge.

For example, according to origins-of-life biologist Dr. Stephen Meyer,

For a single stand of RNA to replicate, there must be an identical RNA molecule close by. To have a reasonable chance of having two identical RNA molecules of the right length would require a library of ten billion billion billion billion billion billion RNA molecules–and that effectively rules out any chance origin of a primitive replicating system. Jay Roth, former professor of cell and molecular biology at the University of Connecticut and an expert in nucleic acids, discussing the orginal template for the first living system, stated:

[T]his template must have been very complex indeed. For this template and this template alone, it appears it is reasonable at present to suggest the possibility of a creator." (Jay Roth, “the Piling of Coincidence on Coincidence,” in: Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, ediors, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, (Chicago: Open Court, 1992), 199 Biochemist Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA stated:“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, ***could only state that in some sense, the ***origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (Francis Crick, Life Itself, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981),88Arno Penzias, Physicist and Nobel Prize winner:“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole” (Malcom W. Browne, “Clues to the Universe Origin Expected”, New York Times (March 12, 1978) continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…
Atheist scientist Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919, stated a dozen years later: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole.” He later said, “We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started.” Scientists often draw their “scientific” conclusions from their philosophical worldview.

It is obvious to those who have science degrees (like you, and me) that science is viewed through the spectacles of one’s philosophy. It must. Humans use all available knowledge to decide what to believe.

Thus, we certainly decide many things based upon “all the knowledge available to us” not necessarily upon only what we actually see. We put people in prison and even put them to death based upon what we believe to be trustworthy witness testimony without actually have seen them murder someone. This is not based upon absolute proof, but evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.

I’m in the military and have worked as a spacecraft and missile systems engineer for much of my career. I would not have gotten very far if I failed to make certain decisions based upon incomplete evidence. We don’t always SEE what we BELIEVE, but instead base our decision upon evidence that is “intellectually compelling” yet perhaps not experienced nor experimentally proved or for that matter, seen as provable–this is especially true in space operations.

Here’s an example of a proposition that has never been experimentally provable, but has been believed even by atheists based upon the preponderance of evidence: “Anything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence.” We know of nothing that has ever begun to exist which does not have a cause. We can look at all available knowledge and this is confirmed everywhere we look. Yet, no strict scientific proof is available, although science presumes it to be true.

My first lecture for a HS CCD class that I taught focused on objective truth versus subjective truth, and the ways in which we come to believe. It was based upon material from Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics. This touches upon your thesis of “intellectually compelling” as the basis for belief.

Here’s some notes from my lecture…

Truth is objective: “truth is what corresponds to reality”
– Real (Webster’s) = “not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent”
– Reality (Webster’s) = “the totality of real things and events”
– Truth (Webster’s) = “the body of real things, events, and facts”
– Truth and reality, therefore, are synonymous–the totality of things, events, and facts which are not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or merely apparent

If humanity shares the same reality, then truth for me must be the same as truth for you—truth must be objective

Yet, there are false “subjective” theories of truth:

– Pragmatic: “truth is what works”
– Empiricist: “truth is what we can sense”
– Rationalist: “truth is what can be strictly proved by reason”
– Oneness: “truth is the harmony of all ideas”
– Emotional: “truth is what I feel”

What works, what we see, what is reasonable, the ideas of others, and what we feel, ARE IMPORTANT—but they do not define truth. Instead, all these important things help us discover the objective truth that was there all along

Truth is often confused with belief. Belief is that which we affirm to be true.Truth is objective. Belief is subjective.

We come to our subjective belief by three means:

1. Our experience
2. Our reasoning skills
3. Testimony of others

Our beliefs vary from person to person because our experience varies, our reasoning skills vary, and the testimony we hear and trust varies. Often we trust the testimony of others because we have faith . This faith is a reasonable response upon the preponderance of evidence or obvious trustworthiness of that witness. But what we believe may surely be true or false depending upon how it actually corresponds to reality. This is true of every field of study or human endeavor.

I for one must trust in Erwin Schroedinger’s expert witness when evaluating the veracity of his equation regarding quantum physics. It has been many years since my study of quantum physics, so today, I’d say that it is reasonable to simply place my faith in other trustworthy witnesses with regard to quantum physics.

I’ve also come to believe what Sir Francis Bacon asserted “A little science estranges a man from God; a lot of science brings him back.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In reply to this comment…
Richard Dawkins:

One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can’t examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you.

If Dawkins would try to view the evidence through another pair of philosophical spectacles, he’d have a different conclusion. Other’s have done just that…

According to Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London:

“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that*** I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. ***That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school’.” (Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981)

 

[reen12]

Dave, what a beautiful piece of work, your 3 posts are! :tiphat:
They deserve a more complete reply, than I am able
to give just at the moment. But I will indeed reply, more fully,
shortly.

I wanted to note that I started in chemistry and eventually
switched to philosophy, so I do not hold a degree in
science. I introduced the fact that I was more than a
little aquainted with the scientific method, in order to
address another poster’s point, re: philosophy vs.! science.

[It would be laughable, for me to attempt to claim that I
knew a small fraction of what you understand about
physics.]

When I can reply more fully, I’d like to examine the following,
based on the material that you presented:

-“certainty”
-Behe’s work on irreducible complexity [that’s the additional
reason that I’m - *more than a bit sceptical - about this
‘cherished’ theory.]

acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm

and:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

I am underwhelmed at the thought that “scientific community”
‘rejects’ Behe’s work. I look to these given individuals, and say:
Riigggghhhtttt! ‘“Cherished Theory” under attack !’

-the idea of ‘development’ versus one species somehow "morphing’ into a totally different species [no *evidence !]
Is the word I’m looking for ‘development’? The horse of
ages ago, compared to the horse now? That’s not
“evolution”! Not one species “morphing”…
[Someone is bound to introduce *Archaeopteryx ! ]

This is not an area of expertise, on my part, but I have
followed this theory with interest, over the years, and
I appreciate your greater knowledge, in this instance.

Many thanks, Dave, for your scholarship and for your
skill, in presenting relevant material. :tiphat:

Best,

reen

 

[hecd2]

itsjustdave1988:

In reply to this comment…

According to Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London:“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that*** I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. ***That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school’.” (Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981)

And this is what he said afterwards - don’t see this on many ID or creationist websites:

‘I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen:
the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape
to Luther Sunderland… Since, in my view, the tape was
obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating
the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much
point in my going through the article point by point. I was
putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record,
and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field.
I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in
particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school
curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my
views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be
resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting
‘authorities,’ which seems to be the creationists’ principal
mode of argument." (Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W.
Binkley, June 17, 1982).’

In 1999, the second edition of his book, Evolution was published. He wrote this in the introduction:
*“The knowledge in my first edition came from education and indoctrination; it was that neo-Darwinism is certainty. The knowledge in this second edition comes more from working things out for myself; it is that evolution is certainty. And part of the ignorance in the first edition concerned the difference between neo-Darwinism and evolution, whereas the ignorance in this edition is of the completeness of neo-Darwinism as an explanation of evolution … I think that belief [shared ancestry] is now confirmed as completely as anything can be in the historical sciences … [but] … I am no longer certain that natural selection is the complete explanation…”.

*And this in the main text:
“Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth … a world-wide flood … or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. … I learned that one should think carefully about candor in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of ‘quotable quotes’, often taken out of context”

Qutable quotes taken out of context. Worth thinking about.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

itsjustdave1988:

Reen12,

I believe that our day to day decisions are made, not because we are convinced by strict scientific or logical proofs, but base upon a “reasonable view.”

For example the late George Wald was a professor of biology, having earned a Doctor of Philosophy in Biology. He was an evolutionist who similarly discussed the “reasonable view” and the “philosophic necessity” inherent in even the strict discipline of science. Dr. Wald wrote:

Science, business, law, economics, medicine, politics, military decision-making, and day-to-day decisions are filled with decisions based upon evidence (obviousness) that may be incomplete and may not be a strict proof, but is either “beyond reasonable doubt” or based upon the “preponderance of evidence.” In fact, there’s a lesser evidentiary standard in law called the “preponderance of evidence” which is use in civil lawsuits which is even less stict than the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of criminal law. Consequently, it is reasonable and I’d assert necessary for people to believe based upon a standard which is less than strict proofs.

Thus, it is reasonable, based upon the preponderance of evidence to believe in a Creator, given what we know of all available knowledge.

For example, according to origins-of-life biologist Dr. Stephen Meyer,For a single stand of RNA to replicate, there must be an identical RNA molecule close by. To have a reasonable chance of having two identical RNA molecules of the right length would require a library of ten billion billion billion billion billion billion RNA molecules–and that effectively rules out any chance origin of a primitive replicating system. Jay Roth, former professor of cell and molecular biology at the University of Connecticut and an expert in nucleic acids, discussing the orginal template for the first living system, stated:[T]his template must have been very complex indeed. For this template and this template alone, it appears it is reasonable at present to suggest the possibility of a creator." (Jay Roth, “the Piling of Coincidence on Coincidence,” in: Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, ediors, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, (Chicago: Open Court, 1992), 199 Biochemist Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA stated:“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, ***could only state that in some sense, the ***origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (Francis Crick, Life Itself, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981),88Arno Penzias, Physicist and Nobel Prize winner:“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole” (Malcom W. Browne, “Clues to the Universe Origin Expected”, New York Times (March 12, 1978) continued…

I thought that quote mining was a discredited mode of argument but it seems not.

Wald’s quote is hopelessly out of date, predating as it does an understanding of the implications of DNA structure and any sort of understanding of RNA and DNA templates.

Stephen Meyer is an out and out proponent of ID, and one of the founders of the Discovery Institute. He is no authority. His claim to fame is that he sneaked an ID paper past the referees at the tiny specialist journal ‘Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington’. The society then repudiated the paper. He has done no biological research of any note.

Roth is non-comittal
Crick was a physicist not a biochemist
Penzias was a physicist
Eddington was a physicist and notably loopy in later life and anyway the philosophical repugnance of any individual is not good evidence against a scientific hypothesis.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Crick was indeed a Physicist. Yet he went back to school (good for him) and studied biology. His nobel prize was not for physics, but because of his research on DNA. Pretty smart guy.

Penzias was a physicist
Eddington was a physicist

Hmmm… is that a rebuttal? Are physicist not real scientists?

My point was that philosophical necessity, faith, and reason all play into what many scientists have concluded, either positively or negatively with regard to evidence for God, not just in biology, but throughout the spectrum of science.

For example,

Allen Rex Sandage is a cosmologist. I know, I know…not a biologist but just a lowly astronomer. However, he studied under Edwin Hubble, and is probably one of the most respected in his scientific field, receiving many prestigious awards, and is credited with the discovery of quasars. Before your rebuttal that he is just a astonomer, and not a demi-god biologist, I conceded that fact.

Nonetheless, this dolt of an scientist affirms that it was the evidence of science that led him to conclude in the positive for a creator.

Warning…more “quote mining” follows:

The Big Bang, Sandage said, was a supernatural event that the realm of physics could not explain. The abrupt emergence of space, time, matter, and energy indicate the need for some sort of transcendent power.

“It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science,” Sandage said later. “It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.”

pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13743 ]

Now, you can certainly disagree with Sandage, but the point was not to disparage your precious evolutionary theories, but to rebut the silly pretense that scientific conclusions are based on evidence freed from “faith” or “philosophical necessity.” Humans simply don’t set their philosophical spectacles aside when making their conclusions, scientific or otherwise. What one thinks regarding ontology and epistemology have a bearing on one’s conclusions, whether they realize it or not.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for Dr. Patterson’s later comment about his prior “anti-evolutionary view,” we have a word for that in the military… “**quibbling: **to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words.” I think they call it “spin doctoring” in politics.

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

…but to rebut the silly pretense that scientific conclusions are based on evidence freed from “faith” or “philosophical necessity.” Humans simply don’t set their philosophical spectacles aside when making their conclusions, scientific or otherwise. What one thinks regarding ontology and epistemology have a bearing on one’s conclusions, whether they realize it or not.

Hat’s off ! :tiphat: for the term “silly pretense.” So true, so true…

itsjustdave

What one thinks regarding ontology and epistemology have a bearing on one’s conclusions, whether they realize it or not.

Archaeopteryx -
is a case in point*.*] This is “science”?..or perhaps one’s own
little ‘ontological’ heaven…

“silly pretense” is right.

[This also comes in the Giant, Economy size: Pretentiousness!
…across the board. ]

reen12

[won’t be able to post until Thursday…relative will be in the
hospital.]

 

[reen12]

quote: hecd2

I thought that quote mining was a discredited mode of argument but it seems not

When my opponent presents quotes, it may be referred to as
“quote mining” and same is “discredited.”

When my “side” does same, it’s called " ‘product’ - of research"
aka “scholarship”

IMO.

Best,

reen12