Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody observed the effect of evolution.
Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency in populations of organisms over time. This is most certainly observable.
That is by not metrics what evolution simply is.
Misconceptions about evolution
121–130 of 172 posts
Re: Misconceptions about evolution
#122For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…
As I see it, the basic flaw in the materialist worldview is this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/ It is also what leaves the door open for more transcendent views. Eastern religions, in particular, are founded on the basic idea that your everyday experience is illusory. You dismiss religious beliefs as based on "essentially nothing". In fact, the basis of religious belief in the most general se…
> That's true, if you restrict yourself to what's usually considered "evidence" in science.
It's true that if you don't restrict yourself to the world of facts, you can do pretty much anything. And there are lots of contexts where I'm doing things decidedly not rooted in facts, such as enjoying and producing works of fiction for entertainment. However, if we're going to talk about the nature of the world, adhering to facts becomes mandatory. Otherwise, there is not a lot of meaningful exchange to have at all. Of course it's fun to kick hypotheses around - but a supernatural world view is usually not a mere hypothesis, it's a postulate made in conscious and willful contradiction to evidence.
For instance, I like Lord of the Rings, but the moment I insist people should take seriously my belief that orcs are under my bed, I have crossed the river into the land of delusion. Of course I'm free to entertain that belief, but people publicly calling it out as bullshit is not Chauvinism, it's an honest and rational response.
Re: Misconceptions about evolution
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're at least asking the question at the right level. Most people get bogged down arguing about how the something that already was became different stuff that was. "Why is there something and not nothing at all?" is an excellent philosophical base to start building a cosmology on.
I was just thinking this when I read your comment. It is probably the largest thing that is holding me to my faith in an a God. Whether or not evolution is true, it explains _how_ our world was created, but not why.
Maybe there is no "why". The world is, no reason, at least nothing we could ever understand.
Re: Misconceptions about evolution
#124For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…
That's your opinion. There are plenty of people who feel that the concept of an afterlife is a very comforting one and would prefer to have it. Unless you can prove that humanity is better off with statistical significance, please shut up about religion on hacker news! :)
The concept of an afterlife is appealing to me as an atheist, but that doesn't make it true. And that's really the core problem of religious arguments: wishing very hard for the laws of the universe to change doesn't make it so. Ever the technocrat, I would take that innate wish for an afterlife as an unconscious manifestation of the desire for humans to transcend their biological existence and move on to something better. And that's certainly something worth pursuing. But just sitting on a rug and insisting it's already an option, provided you adhere to certain mystical rules of course, now that's just unproductive nonsense.
Re: Misconceptions about evolution
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you feel there is an inherent conflict between science and religion (or am I misreading). I see no reason why this needs to be the case. Once you move beyond explanations for things that can make testable predictions, then you are out outside of science you have moved in to philosophy. At that point all explanations that don't contradict what is observed become equally valid/invalid. Take for example t…
Yes, but as a scientist I see no reason to believe in some specific unprovable concept over any other. I find Christian believe as arbitrary as Muslim believe as arbitrary as anything else I can come up with. So how could I believe in any of them?
Yes, it is arbitrary. Believing that there is no creator to the universe is also arbitrary. That is because, science, as it currently stands, has nothing to say about the matter. Picking/not picking any religion is a matter of philosophy, not science.
Re: Misconceptions about evolution
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
The present-day biosphere is an effect, as is the fossil record and DNA relations between species.
That does not prove evolution the way gravity is proven.
How so? Evolution is just change in populations over time with common descent, and that's pretty well demonstrated through the things I mentioned, about the same as gravity is demonstrated by things falling. What's different?
Re: Misconceptions about evolution
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. If we can adequately explain not just life but the sensation of consciousness - that personal identity which is said to persist into the afterlife - in terms of physical interactions which terminate and decompose when the body dies, then strictly speaking it requires additional unwarranted suppositions to assume that this explainable and now terminated physical phenomenon persisted and continued to o…
No, it would not. Anything that exists outside the universe and time is not subject to conjecture of any sort. Applying logic to such a thing is meaningless; there is no reason for logic to exist outside of the universe. In other words, absolutely nothing meaningful can be claimed about an afterlife (unless such a thing exists within this universe which seems doubtful).
What you are arguing is called mind dualism. It is subject to very many difficulties, and does nothing to resolve pesky issues like neurologically damaged and split brain individuals (what happens in their afterlife?) or explain why there is this magical correspondence between the spiritual realm and physical reality, without any causal connection (see my point about Occam priors).
Re: Misconceptions about evolution
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you feel there is an inherent conflict between science and religion (or am I misreading). I see no reason why this needs to be the case. Once you move beyond explanations for things that can make testable predictions, then you are out outside of science you have moved in to philosophy. At that point all explanations that don't contradict what is observed become equally valid/invalid. Take for example t…
Science is far more than "testable predictions" and covers an entire method that we have found to be the best and only way to understand reality with timid certainty. Science itself is basically a subfield of epistemology and it ties together both WHAT we know and WHY we actually know it instead of simply believe it. Science is dedicated to finding out what reality is (as best as mathematics or other abstract structu…
I agree completely with your first two paragraphs. I'll even buy the first sentence of your last paragraph. However, I fail to see why religion inherently conflicts with science. It is in no way clear that the scientific method can be applied to everything. Religion, or one of many other arbitrary philosophies, can fill in the parts that science does not cover.
If you start with the hypothesis that the universe was constructed by a conscious creator, how do you address that scientifically? As far as I can tell, the answer is, you can't.
Re: Misconceptions about evolution
#129For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…
> how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another It's even worse than that. For religious scientists, often belief is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand. The reason this still somewhat works is because humans can exist (and sometimes thrive) in a state of profound cognitive dissonance. I don't remember right now who said this first, but…
This pathologizing of religion is too self-serving and deserves some skepticism.
For one thing, it lacks a sufficient explanation for the scientific/mathematical contributions and intellect of people with religious/supernatural belief; people such as Donald Knuth, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Euler, Pascal, and so on.
For another, it conflates beliefs with mental habits. The point with empirical science, or math, or any other such discipline is the adherence to a set of intellectual practices rather than a particular set of conclusions that may (or may not) result from employing those practices.
Now beliefs are important, but at least for empirical science the usual criteria is that a belief be held only insofar as it is useful. Holding to the Physical Causal Closure (PCC) principle can be quite useful for investigating natural phenomenon, but plenty of intelligent people have been willing to break from it when they think it will help explain other aspects of life.
Of course, the PCC principle is not the result of research in empirical science, but rather its beginning. It is itself a philosophical, pre-scientific thesis, and should be dealt with as such. Incidentally, it is because of observations like these that Positivism is no longer a widely accepted philosophy.
Lastly, it is frankly uncharitable. What's more likely, that most of the world is brain-damaged and/or mentally stunted, or that you are oversimplifying the issues?
Re: Misconceptions about evolution
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course claims about an after life are based on faith, that's true regardless if the claim is that there is or is not an after life.
Not necessarily. If we can adequately explain not just life but the sensation of consciousness - that personal identity which is said to persist into the afterlife - in terms of physical interactions which terminate and decompose when the body dies, then strictly speaking it requires additional unwarranted suppositions to assume that this explainable and now terminated physical phenomenon persisted and continued to o…
I find it to be an interesting philosophical question, I've been quite affected by some ideas from logical positivism, specifically what a meaningful statement is and just how limiting that can be. Using Occam's razor to reason about the existence of xrays before they where observed would lead you to believe that they don't exist, and rightly so, I think as a scentific method it's very helpful.
I view the scientific method to be an instrument to gain knowledge with a common criteria for evidence, not something that represents absolute truth, which in my oppinion is not within reach outside of logic and maths and other self contained systems. But there is a trade off there, in that they by themselves can not produce anything but tautologies without empirical observations as a basis for the premises, unless you believe in synthetic a priori.