Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

"Joe Bergeron" wrote in message
ed...
In article . net, AJ
Sutters wrote:

Believe what you want. Defend what you want.

That's the thing about scientists. They're not supposed to "believe
what they want" (not to say that none of them ever do). They're
supposed to believe only what they see, or find, or figure out, and
that only conditionally.

That's their fundamental problem- they simply can't believe in something
that can't be detected, yet there are things existing in such a way. We
like to think of ourselves as being an advanced society but what if to
someone else we are like an amoeba? Do you think we would even be able to
recognize that intelligence, let alone understand it? Think of the amoeba-
just how would we go about communicating with it? Does it actually see and
understand what we are even though we are right in front of it? Something
to think about. The answers we seek might be right in front of our very
eyes (literally!) but we don't see or detect it because we're far too
primitive. Wouldn't that be a joke! However, it is possible and likely.


If I could believe what I wanted, I would believe in a kinder universe
that offers more in the way of care and solace for its creatures. I
don't see a whole lot of that though.

If you were raising a colony of ants and a group of them decided to get into
a fight over food, how would you stop it? Are you going to interfere by
using a toothpick to move apart several ants? How would the rest of them
react? Would the ants continue to have "free will" after witnessing your
interference?

AJ

--
Joe Bergeron

http://www.joebergeron.com

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 9:23:20 -0600, Michael McCulloch wrote
(in message ):

From: Michael McCulloch
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 07:30:58 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Don't making the mistake of thinking that creationists are just
ignorant; that's too benign a description. One of the foundation stones
of creationism, and part of the foundation of ultra-conservatism
everywhere, is racial hatred (read: fear).

What a completely uninformed and bigoted comment. You are displaying
the exact attitude you accuse.

Most 'creationists' I know, and I dare say the vast majority, are
simple church-going folk that feel the system is indoctrinating their
children to hate religion. Your comment indicates you know very little
about the 'other side'.

I am not a creationist but I can at least have respect for opinions
that might vary from my own. Frankly, I think the teaching of
macro-evolution can wait until high school without risking severe
damage to our children. There are plenty of other science topics to
teach until a later age when parents can feel more comfortable with
addressing the questions of religion vs. science that are inevitably
raised.

Anyway, this is off-topic and I shouldn't have responded, but the
quoted comment was so offensive I couldn't resist.

I disagree with you, I live in Kansas and the damned cretionists tried to
take over our schools a few years back, and they are still trying to get back
into the schools. Kansas isn't the only state this is happening in, not by a
long shot.

I have no respect for anyone who tries to force religion into the public
schools science classes, any religion.

--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)

"I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things, but I've never heard myself
think." - Duke32

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 9:23:20 -0600, Michael McCulloch wrote
(in message ):

From: Michael McCulloch
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 07:30:58 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Don't making the mistake of thinking that creationists are just
ignorant; that's too benign a description. One of the foundation stones
of creationism, and part of the foundation of ultra-conservatism
everywhere, is racial hatred (read: fear).

What a completely uninformed and bigoted comment. You are displaying
the exact attitude you accuse.

Most 'creationists' I know, and I dare say the vast majority, are
simple church-going folk that feel the system is indoctrinating their
children to hate religion. Your comment indicates you know very little
about the 'other side'.

I am not a creationist but I can at least have respect for opinions
that might vary from my own. Frankly, I think the teaching of
macro-evolution can wait until high school without risking severe
damage to our children. There are plenty of other science topics to
teach until a later age when parents can feel more comfortable with
addressing the questions of religion vs. science that are inevitably
raised.

Anyway, this is off-topic and I shouldn't have responded, but the
quoted comment was so offensive I couldn't resist.

I disagree with you, I live in Kansas and the damned cretionists tried to
take over our schools a few years back, and they are still trying to get back
into the schools. Kansas isn't the only state this is happening in, not by a
long shot.

I have no respect for anyone who tries to force religion into the public
schools science classes, any religion.

--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)

"I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things, but I've never heard myself
think." - Duke32

AJ Sutters wrote:
That's their fundamental problem- they simply can't believe in something
that can't be detected, yet there are things existing in such a way.

I think you might be committing a subtle logical error. Just because
they don't believe in something, does not mean they *disbelieve* in it
as well. The latter is a stronger statement.

In any case, the idea of "belief" is a tricky one and therefore eschewed
wherever possible in science. Belief is personal, whereas science is
supposed to be a collective activity. Thus, what matters in science
is not what scientists believe, but only what they can support through
evidence--evidence that anyone can see if they wish. That is why
scientists insist on repeatable experiments. Anything that happens only
once is accident. When it happens over and over again, in laboratories
around the world--that is when it becomes observable fact.

Science does not operate through private revelation, a common channel in
many religions. For instance, you say that there are things existing that
cannot be detected. If so, you must believe in them through some kind
of private epiphany. Depending on your religion, others might aid you
(such as a pastor), but it must be up to you to actually believe. Science
is silent on those things; it will only say that there is no concrete
evidence for them. They aren't objects of scientific study until there
is any evidence (possibly accidental and provisional) that they do exist.

Anti-science folks often say in reply that there is no evidence against
them, either. That may be true, but in science, it is not enough that
there is no evidence against something. There is no evidence against
many things that religions do not assert--such as ice cream sundaes on
Charon--yet I doubt anyone would claim that that is significant support
in favor of sundaes on Charon. In much the same way, there is no evidence
against undetectable realities (whatever that would mean), but that is
not significant support in favor of them.

We like to think of ourselves as being an advanced society but what if to
someone else we are like an amoeba? Do you think we would even be able to
recognize that intelligence, let alone understand it?

Possibly not, but again, just because we can conceive of such an
intelligence does not mean that it must (or should) exist. (Shades of
the ontological argument, it seems to me.)

Arguments such as yours have been put forth lots of times, I'm afraid.
They don't carry much water, in my opinion, because anything that we
can't detect or understand can be postulated to exist without fear of
contradiction. Saying that they *could* exist therefore doesn't say much
more than what must trivially be true.

The answers we seek might be right in front of our very
eyes (literally!) but we don't see or detect it because we're far too
primitive. Wouldn't that be a joke! However, it is possible and likely.

I suppose it is possible, but that it is likely--that is a personal
belief of yours and cannot be shared without revelations on the part of
others. In other words, saying so won't (and shouldn't) convince anyone.
In the case of your analogy, I think it's provocative that we as humans
can provide no answers to the amoeba, either.

As a matter of full disclosure, I should say that I am firmly of the
opinion that there are no easy answers just out there for the taking.
We got ourselves into our messes, and it is up to us to get ourselves out.
(I suspect the popularity of deus ex machina endings to books in large
part represents the fulfillment of frustrated wishes in reality.)

If you were raising a colony of ants and a group of them decided to get into
a fight over food, how would you stop it? Are you going to interfere by
using a toothpick to move apart several ants? How would the rest of them
react? Would the ants continue to have "free will" after witnessing your
interference?

I don't think ants have free will in the sense that they have consciousness,
have self identity, and so on. How do you know? people might ask. I would
say, they show no evidence of it. Free will, consciousness, and the like
are quite complex things to have, and one would have to show evidence for
it (such as the ants having a discourse--probably through non-speech means)
in order to convince me.

As far as the rest of your scenario is concerned, ants get around such
issues through sheer fecundity. Some ants get into fights. The ant hill
is so numerous, however, that such fights are entirely negligible. You
can't stop them, and there really isn't any point in stopping them.

To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure I see how that was responsive to Joe's
comment.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

AJ Sutters wrote:
That's their fundamental problem- they simply can't believe in something
that can't be detected, yet there are things existing in such a way.

I think you might be committing a subtle logical error. Just because
they don't believe in something, does not mean they *disbelieve* in it
as well. The latter is a stronger statement.

In any case, the idea of "belief" is a tricky one and therefore eschewed
wherever possible in science. Belief is personal, whereas science is
supposed to be a collective activity. Thus, what matters in science
is not what scientists believe, but only what they can support through
evidence--evidence that anyone can see if they wish. That is why
scientists insist on repeatable experiments. Anything that happens only
once is accident. When it happens over and over again, in laboratories
around the world--that is when it becomes observable fact.

Science does not operate through private revelation, a common channel in
many religions. For instance, you say that there are things existing that
cannot be detected. If so, you must believe in them through some kind
of private epiphany. Depending on your religion, others might aid you
(such as a pastor), but it must be up to you to actually believe. Science
is silent on those things; it will only say that there is no concrete
evidence for them. They aren't objects of scientific study until there
is any evidence (possibly accidental and provisional) that they do exist.

Anti-science folks often say in reply that there is no evidence against
them, either. That may be true, but in science, it is not enough that
there is no evidence against something. There is no evidence against
many things that religions do not assert--such as ice cream sundaes on
Charon--yet I doubt anyone would claim that that is significant support
in favor of sundaes on Charon. In much the same way, there is no evidence
against undetectable realities (whatever that would mean), but that is
not significant support in favor of them.

We like to think of ourselves as being an advanced society but what if to
someone else we are like an amoeba? Do you think we would even be able to
recognize that intelligence, let alone understand it?

Possibly not, but again, just because we can conceive of such an
intelligence does not mean that it must (or should) exist. (Shades of
the ontological argument, it seems to me.)

Arguments such as yours have been put forth lots of times, I'm afraid.
They don't carry much water, in my opinion, because anything that we
can't detect or understand can be postulated to exist without fear of
contradiction. Saying that they *could* exist therefore doesn't say much
more than what must trivially be true.

The answers we seek might be right in front of our very
eyes (literally!) but we don't see or detect it because we're far too
primitive. Wouldn't that be a joke! However, it is possible and likely.

I suppose it is possible, but that it is likely--that is a personal
belief of yours and cannot be shared without revelations on the part of
others. In other words, saying so won't (and shouldn't) convince anyone.
In the case of your analogy, I think it's provocative that we as humans
can provide no answers to the amoeba, either.

As a matter of full disclosure, I should say that I am firmly of the
opinion that there are no easy answers just out there for the taking.
We got ourselves into our messes, and it is up to us to get ourselves out.
(I suspect the popularity of deus ex machina endings to books in large
part represents the fulfillment of frustrated wishes in reality.)

If you were raising a colony of ants and a group of them decided to get into
a fight over food, how would you stop it? Are you going to interfere by
using a toothpick to move apart several ants? How would the rest of them
react? Would the ants continue to have "free will" after witnessing your
interference?

I don't think ants have free will in the sense that they have consciousness,
have self identity, and so on. How do you know? people might ask. I would
say, they show no evidence of it. Free will, consciousness, and the like
are quite complex things to have, and one would have to show evidence for
it (such as the ants having a discourse--probably through non-speech means)
in order to convince me.

As far as the rest of your scenario is concerned, ants get around such
issues through sheer fecundity. Some ants get into fights. The ant hill
is so numerous, however, that such fights are entirely negligible. You
can't stop them, and there really isn't any point in stopping them.

To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure I see how that was responsive to Joe's
comment.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Davoud wrote:
That's exactly the point; the existence of gravity as you have
described it is not a contentious issue, even if some of its workings
(the "negative gravity" that is accelerating the expansion of the
universe, e.g.) are not settled, so its name is less important.

Since no one asked, I'll volunteer g that I don't like the name
"property of evolution." A property is a predicate. "Has four right
angles and four equal sides" is a property of a square. Evolution,
on the other hand, is an observation, not a predicate--at least, not
so far as I can tell. The meaning of the term in this context isn't
clear. Whereas with "theory of evolution," although its meaning is
often distorted by those with an axe to grind, that meaning is
nevertheless an accepted one with an unambiguous meaning in the
community in which it originated.

Since the word "theory" is used elsewhere in science, I'd much rather
we explained better what that word means, rather than having to rename
all our theories as properties, when they aren't.

(Perhaps Alan Craft, if he's still reading, will disagree. g)

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Davoud wrote:
That's exactly the point; the existence of gravity as you have
described it is not a contentious issue, even if some of its workings
(the "negative gravity" that is accelerating the expansion of the
universe, e.g.) are not settled, so its name is less important.

Since no one asked, I'll volunteer g that I don't like the name
"property of evolution." A property is a predicate. "Has four right
angles and four equal sides" is a property of a square. Evolution,
on the other hand, is an observation, not a predicate--at least, not
so far as I can tell. The meaning of the term in this context isn't
clear. Whereas with "theory of evolution," although its meaning is
often distorted by those with an axe to grind, that meaning is
nevertheless an accepted one with an unambiguous meaning in the
community in which it originated.

Since the word "theory" is used elsewhere in science, I'd much rather
we explained better what that word means, rather than having to rename
all our theories as properties, when they aren't.

(Perhaps Alan Craft, if he's still reading, will disagree. g)

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:37:28 GMT, AJ Sutters wrote:

[snip]
That's their fundamental problem- they simply can't believe in something
that can't be detected, yet there are things existing in such a way.
[snip]

Something which cannot be detected, by implication, cannot influence
reality in any way.

So, what precisely is the difference between something that cannot be
detected and something that does not exist?


--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:37:28 GMT, AJ Sutters wrote:

[snip]
That's their fundamental problem- they simply can't believe in something
that can't be detected, yet there are things existing in such a way.
[snip]

Something which cannot be detected, by implication, cannot influence
reality in any way.

So, what precisely is the difference between something that cannot be
detected and something that does not exist?


--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.

"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:37:28 GMT, AJ Sutters wrote:

[snip]
That's their fundamental problem- they simply can't believe in something
that can't be detected, yet there are things existing in such a way.
[snip]

Something which cannot be detected, by implication, cannot influence
reality in any way.

Oh? Well, how about gamma radiation exposure say 500 years ago. Couldn't
detect it at that time, yet people surely died of radiation sickness or
cancer at one time or another.


So, what precisely is the difference between something that cannot be
detected and something that does not exist?


Depends on what you believe. There can be a huge difference. Can you
"detect" my thoughts at this very moment? Brainwaves are easily detected
but thinking itself isn't. Conventional wisdom might say that since
thoughts can't be detected, they do not exist. However, we all know better
don't we. Also, how exactly do we go about "proving" a thought?

AJ

--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.