Jump to content

Ben Stein, the Michael Moore of intelligent design?


flaps15

Recommended Posts

[quote name='oregonarchist' post='1984925'

Actually I agree with Moe Alfa on this, but the point is Aristotelians held that a motionless earth was irrefutable because a rock dropped from a tower falls to the earth in a straight line. Therefore how do we know that our present empirical framework is valid?

 

Kant comes to mind here-"But where common sense believes that rationalizing sophists have the intention of shaking the very fundament of the commonweal, then it would seem to be not only reasonable, but permissible, and even praisworthy to aid the good cause with sham reasons rather than leaving the advantage to the...opponent."

You have found one of the limits of my education, there Spanky. I can do science all day, but I'm embarrassingly weak in philosophy.

 

Don't feel bad, MA -- the ID folks are embarrassingly weak in science. Everyone has their limits. The difference would seem to be that you know yours, and stick to that which you know...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 534
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The whole problem is the people who promote intelligent design don't base it on the Bible.

I don't see that as a problem for anyone who understands the implications of the ID theory for biology, ontogeny, etc..

 

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. That must be true because I read it on a bathroom wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't feel bad, MA -- the ID folks are embarrassingly weak in science. Everyone has their limits. The difference would seem to be that you know yours, and stick to that which you know...

I'm a full-time academic. My life is one shitfight after another. I've learned to pick them carefully. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole problem is the people who promote intelligent design don't base it on the Bible.

I don't see that as a problem for anyone who understands the implications of the ID theory for biology, ontogeny, etc..

 

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. That must be true because I read it on a bathroom wall.

One of your middle schoolers, no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole problem is the people who promote intelligent design don't base it on the Bible.

I don't see that as a problem for anyone who understands the implications of the ID theory for biology, ontogeny, etc..

 

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. That must be true because I read it on a bathroom wall.

One of your middle schoolers, no doubt.

 

Actually, it was on the wall at Marmaduke's in Eastport. Bunch of educated, but sadly misinformed drunks frequented the place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it was on the wall at Marmaduke's in Eastport. Bunch of educated, but sadly misinformed drunks frequented the place.

It always amazes me how so many disparate people can come up with these deep truths independently. Must be something about shitting and its effect on the brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it was on the wall at Marmaduke's in Eastport. Bunch of educated, but sadly misinformed drunks frequented the place.

It always amazes me how so many disparate people can come up with these deep truths independently. Must be something about shitting and its effect on the brain.

 

I thought it was the alcohol. Well, one of us is probably right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The irony is that the fossil collecting, etc. that eventually lead to theory of evolution began started back when science was considered a kind of worship.

...and the pursuit of many devout men of the cloth. However, I fear it is not the same spirit of discovery that animates our colleagues in the ID movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it was on the wall at Marmaduke's in Eastport. Bunch of educated, but sadly misinformed drunks frequented the place.

It always amazes me how so many disparate people can come up with these deep truths independently. Must be something about shitting and its effect on the brain.

 

I thought it was the alcohol. Well, one of us is probably right.

Killer combination, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it was on the wall at Marmaduke's in Eastport. Bunch of educated, but sadly misinformed drunks frequented the place.

It always amazes me how so many disparate people can come up with these deep truths independently. Must be something about shitting and its effect on the brain.

 

I thought it was the alcohol. Well, one of us is probably right.

Hell of a dump or amazing cocktails for anyone to remember graffiti from a place that closed ten years ago. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it was on the wall at Marmaduke's in Eastport. Bunch of educated, but sadly misinformed drunks frequented the place.

It always amazes me how so many disparate people can come up with these deep truths independently. Must be something about shitting and its effect on the brain.

 

I thought it was the alcohol. Well, one of us is probably right.

Hell of a dump or amazing cocktails for anyone to remember graffiti from a place that closed ten years ago. :lol:

BD is a deep guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it was on the wall at Marmaduke's in Eastport. Bunch of educated, but sadly misinformed drunks frequented the place.

It always amazes me how so many disparate people can come up with these deep truths independently. Must be something about shitting and its effect on the brain.

 

I thought it was the alcohol. Well, one of us is probably right.

 

Alcohol sometimes is yeast shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You let go of the rock, it is affected by an energy field with a vector. The rock drops its first quantum level. It has an equal probability of jumping up, sideways or down at that level. It continues on to the next quantum level. Over a large enough sample of quantum levels, it continues down, but on each quantum jump, it is a confused teenager. It eventually reaches the ground because of the large number of quantum jumps makes it probable that it will reach the ground directly in line with its time-vectored energy field.

 

A fellow named Bernstein said that it is how we distinquish risk that delineates modern society from that which preceded it. The Greeks had democracy, the Romans capitalism, but it is this concept that things are not pre-ordained that makes our science and technology work. "The future is not the whim of gods and men and women are not passive before nature."

 

There is a risk that the rock will not reach the ground. There is a risk the rock will reach the ground far from its starting point. This risk is small, but still there, and if we are talking about a proton instead of a rock, that risk may be significant.

 

For ID to exist, it must reject the concept of risk, because it states that there is no indeterminant position. Things have been designed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it was on the wall at Marmaduke's in Eastport. Bunch of educated, but sadly misinformed drunks frequented the place.

It always amazes me how so many disparate people can come up with these deep truths independently. Must be something about shitting and its effect on the brain.

 

I thought it was the alcohol. Well, one of us is probably right.

Hell of a dump or amazing cocktails for anyone to remember graffiti from a place that closed ten years ago. :lol:

 

August 27th, 1984. I'll never forget the date.

 

To paraphrase Robin Williams' character in "The Fisher King" - It was a bowel movement that bordered on the mystical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can prove the theory of relativity wrong by dropping a rock.

 

Find the cure for gravity yet?

 

No, but I still think science is more subjective than is usually supposed.

 

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Niel Bohr

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can prove the theory of relativity wrong by dropping a rock.

 

Find the cure for gravity yet?

 

No, but I still think science is more subjective than is usually supposed.

 

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Niel Bohr

Scientists are subjective (and their comprehension limited). Science is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can prove the theory of relativity wrong by dropping a rock.

 

Find the cure for gravity yet?

 

No, but I still think science is more subjective than is usually supposed.

 

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Niel Bohr

Scientists are subjective (and their comprehension limited). Science is not.

 

 

Is not your subjectivity relative to your frame of reference? I am not saying that this frame of reference cannot be agreed upon. If you hit the cue ball properly, the 8 ball will go to the side pocket. We are all agreed with that ( I hope ) It is when the chance that the proton will not go into the side pocket when hit with the beta particle that subjectivity enters. How about the chance that there is a mutation that makes a person able to take heroin and not get addicted?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is not your subjectivity relative to your frame of reference? I am not saying that this frame of reference cannot be agreed upon. If you hit the cue ball properly, the 8 ball will go to the side pocket. We are all agreed with that ( I hope ) It is when the chance that the proton will not go into the side pocket when hit with the beta particle that subjectivity enters. How about the chance that there is a mutation that makes a person able to take heroin and not get addicted?

If I understand you, that's uncertainty, not subjectivity. Science is all about degrees of certainty: low for the behavior of individual particles, higher for their aggregate behavior, very high for pool ball mechanics and the likelihood that the theory of evolution and the "natural" origin of life is essentially correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can prove the theory of relativity wrong by dropping a rock.

 

Find the cure for gravity yet?

 

No, but I still think science is more subjective than is usually supposed.

 

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Niel Bohr

Scientists are subjective (and their comprehension limited). Science is not.

 

 

Is not your subjectivity relative to your frame of reference? I am not saying that this frame of reference cannot be agreed upon. If you hit the cue ball properly, the 8 ball will go to the side pocket. We are all agreed with that ( I hope ) It is when the chance that the proton will not go into the side pocket when hit with the beta particle that subjectivity enters. How about the chance that there is a mutation that makes a person able to take heroin and not get addicted?

 

What I am saying is that science is an ideology because the interpretation of observations is implicitly influenced by theoretical assumptions. It is therefore impossible to describe or evaluate observations independently of theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am saying is that science is an ideology because the interpretation of observations is implicitly influenced by theoretical assumptions. It is therefore impossible to describe or evaluate observations independently of theory.

Oh no, a Postmodernist. :o Do you believe there is such a thing as truth or are we merely awash in "texts"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth, but there is optimal truth-as you say degrees of certainty. The Aristotleans were certain that the earth did not move as per their rock experiment, but obviously they were wrong. Therefore it is important to keep an open mind, but intelligent design is a bit too much of a stretch IMO. However the idea that new hypotheses must agree with accepted theories preserves the older theory, and not the better theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can prove the theory of relativity wrong by dropping a rock.

 

Find the cure for gravity yet?

 

No, but I still think science is more subjective than is usually supposed.

 

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Niel Bohr

Scientists are subjective (and their comprehension limited). Science is not.

 

 

Is not your subjectivity relative to your frame of reference? I am not saying that this frame of reference cannot be agreed upon. If you hit the cue ball properly, the 8 ball will go to the side pocket. We are all agreed with that ( I hope ) It is when the chance that the proton will not go into the side pocket when hit with the beta particle that subjectivity enters. How about the chance that there is a mutation that makes a person able to take heroin and not get addicted?

 

What I am saying is that science is an ideology because the interpretation of observations is implicitly influenced by theoretical assumptions. It is therefore impossible to describe or evaluate observations independently of theory.

 

Science is more a method than and ideology and with this methodology we have, since the Enlightenment, been able to successfully predict natural events as well as the existence of as yet undiscovered matter. It is the most powerful, rigorous and robust method for the discovery and understanding of our natural world ever devised.

 

"The scientific method is nothing more than a system of rules to keep us from lying to each other".-Ken Norris

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth, but there is optimal truth-as you say degrees of certainty. The Aristotleans were certain that the earth did not move as per their rock experiment, but obviously they were wrong. Therefore it is important to keep an open mind, but intelligent design is a bit too much of a stretch IMO. However the idea that new hypotheses must agree with accepted theories preserves the older theory, and not the better theory.

This is the absolute antithesis of the Scientific Method.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Einstein didn't mind bucking the dogma of classical mechanics.

That is the beauty of the scientific method at work. A more sophisticated testable hypothesis comes along and changes everthing. Dogma is not riogorous. Dogma does not countenance objection. Dogma is anti-science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem dogmatic about method though. Ethnobiologists go off to the jungle to learn from witch-doctors, the ancient Egyptians got a lot done even though they worshipped cats-there is world outside the scientific method. Even within science there have been people like Niels Bohr who didn't necessarily go by the "rules". You should read Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method"-it's an excellent read even if you totally disagree with his premise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bohr had to come to terms with an observation that was at odds with all theory to that point. The Ultraviolet Catastrophy said that an electron attached to an atom, if looked side on, went back and forth from one side of the nucleus to the other. The atom should then radiate energy and all the world should disintegrate at an ultraviolet frequency as atoms collapse. The atoms of the universe don't collapse.

 

He came up with a theory that addressed the issue. This theory has, again, stood the test of time. My attempt at reconciling subjectivity with uncertainty because I see that by introducing uncertainty into the equation, Bohr had changed the game, but the requirement to do it was still observation based.

 

In some ways I think this has gotten back to Einsteins statement that time is something that is measured with a clock. A person observes time with a clock. Time's existence is not as valid without the observation of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem dogmatic about method though. Ethnobiologists go off to the jungle to learn from witch-doctors, the ancient Egyptians got a lot done even though they worshipped cats-there is world outside the scientific method. Even within science there have been people like Niels Bohr who didn't necessarily go by the "rules". You should read Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method"-it's an excellent read even if you totally disagree with his premise.

 

 

I am in no way denigrating concepts such as imagination, folklore, philosophy etc that lie outside of the scientific method, as long they are not passed off as science. We get a lot done and most of the world worships some type of invisible entitie(s). It is the use of science got us a space station, penicillin and HD tv.

 

I am merely expounding a proven, robust and testable methodology that invites cogent, testable dissent. You, on the other hand, appear to be jumping to a conclusion. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...