h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yeah, I *should* be busier than I am being. Have fun dude.

<>

Philosophy is really a way of analysing things. So you can have philosophy of science, philosophy of ethics, philosophy of politics etc. All of these are important, but for the purposes of evolution/creation, those aspects of philosophy that deal with the way the material world works are the fundamental ones.

<>

This is generally true, (although we can also reference other ways of representing the world via the other senses), so the internal consistency of those references is an important part of our "reality checking.

<>

Logic, as Ste pointed out, is a system of rules for sound thinking. If something contradicts the rules of logic, it is probably irrational, but the rules of logic have to be applied to something, and these "somethings" are not themselves logical or illogical, but may be considered rational or irrational. So rationality is only partly determined by logic.

<>

As I said before "Truth is constant" is equivalent to the statement that there is an external reality that is what it is regardless of what we think about it, and that a True statement is one that correctly represents that reality. But of course we can never be *absolutely* sure that statements do represent reality correctly, and we have to settle for truth (small t) - that is, statements that have been tested, and not found to be false. And the scientific method, as described by Ste, is a way of testing our statements against observation, the only access to "Reality" that we have.

The problem with making "God exists" a foundational statement is that its truth can't be tested. Things like the sanctity of human life can't be tested by the scientific method either, although it *can* be observed that they form part of "agreed upon rationality" for humans.

Noggin

Nerd42, sorry for my incorrect assumption about your religious leanings, I honestly thought RLDS was the Mormons. On the other hand, I now know they aren't, so I learned something which is always good! I was only trying to gain some background to your thoughts.
My apologies.

tis OK.

Now look here. Google doesn't define philosophy as a science (I'm pretty sure I typed in "define:Philosophy" in Google before I ever started writing this thing) the definitions on Google seem to vary quite alot.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aphilosophy&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
Nerd42

tis OK.

Now look here. Google doesn't define philosophy as a science (I'm pretty sure I typed in "define:Philosophy" in Google before I ever started writing this thing) the definitions on Google seem to vary broadly.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aphilosophy&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

I was defining philosophy as ... I guess you could say "The set of principles underlying one's worldview" - and I said you can't base them on the scientific method and then claim your view is the only one that is "scientific."

Now, like I'd said, "God exists" is a statement of faith. I do not attmpet to prove it. In the paper I am writing, I do not attempt to prove anything at all - I merely try to explain what /I/ believe. Not only do I believe God exists but I believe God is that which defines objective reality. God cannot lie because God is the standard that defines truth. However, since God was unavailible for comment the last time He was contacted by the New York Times asking for an interview, there is a certain degree of doubt about God's point of view.

Now, though they are not admittedly scientific, there are ways to test God. One is to die - if death is really the end of human existance then the existance of God can be basically disproved by every single human at that point. Otherwise the existance of God can be proven at that point.

Another way might be to witness some kind of supernatural phenomenon - but the trouble with supernatural phenomenon is that it is, as I've said, supernatural and thus not repeatable in a controlled envoernment.
Nerd42

The trouble is that quite a bit of what people call "science" nowadays is not repeatable in a controlled environment. One cannot reproduce the Big Bang, so far nobody's managed to achieve spontaneous generation in a test tube, and as I've said, although animals have been proven to vary within categories, they have not yet been demonstrated to have the ability to change /fundamentally/, such as a fish becoming a reptile, a reptile becoming a bird or a monkey becoming intelligent. As such, "evolutionary science" operates on the /assumption/ that these things can happen and indeed have happened. Thus, it's not really science according to the scientific method based on the four principles I'd mentioned, and neither is "creation science" which operates on the assumption of the literal truth of the Genesis record.
Nerd42

"The trouble is that quite a bit of what people call "science" nowadays is not repeatable in a controlled environment."

This is one of the unreasonable requirements that creationists typically demand - "if you can't do it in a laboratory, it's not science!" they prate. They thus glibly condemn evolution, geology, astrophysics, and literally dozens of other areas that are conventionally dependent on observations of the universe and theorising, in the same way as most science.

It's quite a cunning tactic on the part of creationists, because in the minds of most of the dolts they're trying to appeal to, "science" means something they weren't very good at at school that involved doing things in a laboratory. They therefore get a headache and get annoyed when they're told there are things in science that don't happen in a laboratory. If you're one of these dolts it's forgiveable. If you're one of the dishonest creationists trying to manipulate the dolts, it's not.

"One cannot reproduce the Big Bang,"

One cannot reproduce the creation of the sun, but only the most benighted of morons (i.e. a slim majority of the USAian public) would suggest that therefore it is impossible to correctly describe it.

"so far nobody's managed to achieve spontaneous generation in a test tube,"

Ooh, key words in that sentence... "so far". How shaken will your faith be when it is done?

Don't bother to answer - I know already. You'll do one or both of the following:

1. Deny the evidence before you, claiming that the scientists are lying.
2. Claim the evidence doesn't matter, because you've now moved the goalposts.

"although animals have been proven to vary within categories, they have not yet been demonstrated to have the ability to change /fundamentally/,"

False. False. False. You are wrong. You really do need to deal with this compulsion you seem to have to state nonsense as though it is fact.

",... or a monkey becoming intelligent. As such, "evolutionary science" operates on the /assumption/ that these things can happen and indeed have happened."

... although the latter has apparently not yet happened in your case...

"Thus, it's not really science according to the scientific method based on the four principles I'd mentioned"

There's a clue right there that ONE of the following is wrong:

1. All of modern science.
2. Your definition of science.

I know where my money is...

SoRB

"Google doesn't define philosophy as a science"

Nononono! That's not what we're saying. Science is a philosophy, but philosophy isn't a science. Philosophy literally means "love of" (philo-) "wisdom" (-sophy).

Ste

"The trouble is that quite a bit of what people call "science" nowadays is not repeatable in a controlled environment."

Evolution is repeatable in a controlled environment. It is all the time. Your criteria for demonstrating that evolution happens (laboratory spontaneous generation and laboratory large evolutionary jumps) are unreasonable as these things take millions of years. In fact, we are just starting to learn how large, sudden changes in morphology happen in evolution. The problem is that we don't know much about how organisms develop - but we're learning fast.

We now know the exact genes that were responsible for the change from annelid morphology (like centipedes which have the same body segment repeated down their length) to the arthropod morphology (like insects where each body segment has a specialised limb) - quite a big leap. Do some googling for "Evo-Devo" or "evolutionary-development" and you'll see that these answers you are demanding are not that far away.

But you know what'll happen when sceince answers your questions? You'll change the criteria again. You'll say "but no-one's evolved an E. coli into a human in the lab" - and you'll incorrectly demand that disproves evolution. Science does not recognise your evolutionary "kinds" - they are a creationist creation designed to redefine things in the face of facts.


I'll ask this question again (attempt number 3): Do you think all of science is faith-based, or is it something particular to evolutionary biology?

You are avoiding some pertinent questions, Nerd. It reflects poorly on you. And I won't let you get away with it.


Ste

I would posit that science is not a philosophy at all. Look at one of the definitions of philosophy:

Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

And Empirical:

1)Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
2)Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
3)Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

In science you pose a theory about something and then try to prove it or rip it apart. As Richard Feynman said if YOU can pick holes in your own theory it isn't a good theory.

The whole point of science is proving things rather than the mental masturbation that is philosophising i.e. spouting stuff that tries to explain phenomena in a pretty encompassing statement to satisfy the brains of people who can't actually be bothered to sit down and do some proper investigation into why we experience things and see things.

i.e. How were we and the Earth created? Oh, some supernatural omnipresent, omniscient being created us but he does not interfere with us especially when big bad things happen like wars and dying of cancer or tsunamis but he does help people out who pray or he sometimes gives people diseases and physical disabilities that he then cures to show what a caring person he is and that they some how need to change their lives and do something different.

Of course, the other explanation is thatwe were created through random mutations of a chemical soup that over millenia somehow started to form proteins that grouped together and through the survival of those organisms that were best suited for the environment slowly developed into more complex creatures which even now we do not understand the healing powers of our own bodies which is simply how we recover from life threatening diseases ad why do we get these? Because sh*t happens - get used to it - there is no bigger explanation if you can't cope with tgat explanation don't go making up twee rubbish just to satisfy the people who really can't cope with facing reality.

*breathes in*

And as for not not being able to capture supernatural phenomena in controlled condtions: people DO set up 'experiments' and 'investigations' into supernatural phenomena and get photographs of supposed events. However, they are not controlled even within the area of the experiment and the obvious reasons for the phenomena is ignored.

<>

So philosophical questions like "What do we mean by proof?", and "What does this imply about the way the universe works?", together with the disciplines of logic and mathematics, are of no relevance to science?

Sure, there's plenty of bad philosophy around, but good philosophy is essential for any "proper investigation into why we experience things and see things." Science is built on relevant aspects of philosophy. Philosophy has to take into account the fact that science is successful. There's a division of labour, but there aren't really two separate projects.

Noggin

Are these really philosopical questions? They seem to be simply defining how we come to a scientific conclusion from the data we have collected from experiments and observations, i.e. 'proof' though with a lot of things in science we do not have proof just the closest and best explanation at the time.

Also, implications on how the universe works. Again, that is explaining what the observations we make about the universe show us about how the universe works. It is a conclusion within science based on results. It is what we did in chemistry and physics lessons. we were not philosophising about what we could conclude from the results of an experiment. We were stating the most probable explantion for those results, empirically not philosophy.

Yes, these are really philosophical questions. A definition, or more accuarately an analysis, of the concept of proof must be given before science can get started, and making predictions requires some understanding of the general implications of rule following.

Science is, in fact, as Ste suggested, a form of "applied" philosophy.

Philosophy of science analyses what scientists do, and what general principles must apply to the universe for science to work.

Noggin

Excuse me folks, busy holiday you understand, but I haven't been posting here lately because, as I said I've been busy, and also because every time I get ready to reply somebody else has posted something else. Alot of this backlog is kind of irrelevent, and some individual statements by me have been commented on multiple times by Ste. So, formulating a reply might take a while, not because I need time to research, but because of the amount of stuff I'm going to have to reply to, so please be patient.
Nerd42

1st of all, reply to Post 167 by Ste.

"This is one of the unreasonable requirements that creationists typically demand - "if you can't do it in a laboratory, it's not science!" they prate."
Um ... "If you can't repeat it in a controlled environment" they prate. "If you can't check your facts against the observable universe" they prate. Picky little detractors and skeptics, aren't they. Too bad they don't just accept your theory at face value like you do.

"They thus glibly condemn evolution, geology, astrophysics, and literally dozens of other areas that are conventionally dependent on observations of the universe and theorising, in the same way as most science."
A controlled environment can include an astronomical observatory, if I'm not mistaken. Intelligent arguments please?

"One cannot reproduce the creation of the sun, but only the most benighted of morons (i.e. a slim majority of the USAian public) would suggest that therefore it is impossible to correctly describe it."
Sure I can describe the creation of the sun:

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

The trouble is that I can't prove it, and neither can you.

"Ooh, key words in that sentence... "so far". How shaken will your faith be when it is done?"
Ooh, key word in that sentence, "when" not "if." You are obviously confident that it can be done, that it is only a matter of time. What are you basing that on?

"Don't bother to answer - I know already. You'll do one or both of the following:
1. Deny the evidence before you, claiming that the scientists are lying."
2. Claim the evidence doesn't matter, because you've now moved the goalposts."
Actually, you're probably referring here to things that have happened in the past when trying to predict future behaviour of people you don't know. And in that case, what you are referring to is the consideration of alternate explanations for the evidence (something evolution scientists would probably know nothing about if this attitude is any indication) and the fact that nobody's really come up with that good of a definition of life.

I don't think we'll ever be able to achieve spontaneious generation. In fact, in creation science there is something called the "Law of Biogenesis" - that on the Earth, living matter can only arise from other living matter. It is possible, if you are correct, to scientifically prove this idea to be false, based on a specific definition of what living matter is. Of course, that depends greatly on the definition.
Nerd42

in the second to last paragraph in the previous post, please strike the redundant word "Actually" - I don't know why/how it ended up there

(i will be back to type more later )

(post 167 wasn't by me, by the way )

Oh yeah, two things:

Way-hey!: "Evolution takes science honours" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4552466.stm

And

Woo-hoo!: "Court rejects 'intelligent design' in science class" http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.html

A Good Week for evolutionary biologists!

Ste

Oh my, looks like I got 167 and 168 confused. well, the arguments /would/ have made pretty good sense if you /had/ said that