Copy and paste from one of my recent moronic posts on GD:
"Thanks to one and all. Diogenes, I will resist being drawn on the possibility of intermediate languages because I’m not entirely comfortable with the analogy. I’m not sure that they are commensurate. But that’s not to say the analogy isn’t helpful to others.
So, though I have a sneaking feeling that this will be attacked as an untenable position, it would appear that I believe in microevolution but not (yet ) in macroevolution.
And, to those doubters, it really has more to do with conviction/inner voice/intuition - call it what you will - than with religious upbringing. I know you will probably say that they are two sides of the same coin anyway (both being strictly speaking irrational), but to me they are quite different. The difference between dogma/doctrine/orthodoxy on the one hand and - well - conviction - can’t think of a better word - on the other."
No, dear, just modern biology. Quantum physics can probably survive without it.
However, the scientific principles that lead us to conclude that natural selection underlies the diversity of life today are the same ones that help us understand the atom, gravity, geology, and every other science.
Of course, the fact that it underpins modern biology doesn’t mean you have to believe it. Just that you should be grateful we’re trying so hard, over and over, to explain it to you. You can also claim that you don’t believe in the atomic theory, and refuse to understand its centrality to chemistry. You can try to claim that astronomy works fine even without the theory of the heliocentric solar system. And you can do all these things, without providing a shred of reason to support your ideas.
But don’t get pissy when the rest of us call you out for being stupid. Ignorance is simple to deal with; stupidity is a choice you make every day.
In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve decided that patronizing you is just as effective as trying to reason with you (and a lot more fun, actually). If you manage to come up with a real argument against evolution, I’ll be happy to discuss it. But a real argument doesn’t hinge on silly what ifs (“but, but, but what if there were people, and they just hid for 4 billion years?”) or claims that no one can be absolutely certain of evolution (we similarly can’t be absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow instead of exploding.)
Frankly, the posters who’ve been writing back to you in that thread have been more than patient with your nonsense; my kudos goes out to them.
First, I must say that math is a useful tool to model the real world, but the precise fact that it can be proven systematically (and proven in a way that even the most hard-headed wouldn’t doubt it) is because it’s derived, ultimately, from a set of principles that we take as axioms. It’s related to how the world works, but math and reality are not one and the same.
Second, it’s valid to question the scientific method itself, and the scientific method is the one thing that scientists do have genuine faith in - the idea that the steps scientists take to explore and examine our ideas will lead them in the general direction of the truth. Evolution is the logical outcome of the scientific method, and there’s no denying that. If a person chose to question science on a fundamental level, and came up with reasons more in depth than bodswood’s or lekatt’s, then it’d be a fascinating thing to read.
Of course, I’d say that the scientific method has worked so far. But then, I can’t separate my convictions in it from faith, because my evaluation of the success of science is, in itself, an evaluation based on the scientific method. For myself, at least, I find that my fundamental belief in science is circular.
Nor is science sufficient; moral values are what let us make decisions and judgments with the information gleaned from science. Those morals may be found in philosophy, religion, or individual gut-level conviction. It’s sad that people try to pit two things against each other that work so much better when they’re employed in concert.
I didn’t say they were. What I said was that sometimes science is the appropriate epistemology for the inquiry of truth and sometimes it isn’t. The defense given of testing the perceptions of several people to “prove” that 1 + 1 = 2 is an example of the absurdity of using science inappropriately, and I commented on that. Regarding the scientific method as falsification, the chief criticism of it is by David Stove, who points out that falsification itself, as a principle, is not falsifiable. If you’d like further reading, I recommend Anything Goes, Origins of the Cult of Scientific Irrationalism, by Stove. In it, he tears apart Lakatos, Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend.
Science is only a relevant epistemology under certain definitions of “truth”. I happen to believe that only physical things exist, and that thing like mathematics and truth supervene on the physical, but that is not to say that science is always relevant, and nor can any principle be used to prove itself.
I honestly won’t, because there’s nothing in the world I find more dull than reading about epistemology; not only that, but I don’t need convincing, because as I said, I acknowledge both the fact that science is not inherently the only way to find truth, and in many circumstances it doesn’t offer much guidance at all. But saying “Science isn’t everything” isn’t a valid argument when science has shown something to be true that the arguer doesn’t like.
As I mentioned, I realize that my trust in science is essentially an issue of faith. Perhaps there are better justifications for it in the end; I’ll never know for certain because I’d rather dig my eyes out with an ice cream knife than read a book about epistemology. So my belief in science is only supported by a rather pragmatic argument: so far, it seems to work. The same science that gives us the theory of natural selection has also given us modern medicine, chemistry, and the computer I’m typing on. And those things are enough proof for me.
Of course, Excalibre, science is entirely relevant to the subject at hand: it is beyond reasonable doubt that species die out and are replaced by others which weren’t there before, over millions of years.
My mistake. I thought that when you asked for something fascinating to read that examines the very foundations of science, you wanted something fascinating to read that examines the very foundations of science.
I just reread my previous questions to try to figure out what you’re talking about, and I can’t see anything in what I wrote that could be interpreted that way.
Anyway, I see that a brief reprieve of a calm and rational Liberal is over, and we’re back to the usual smug, nonsensical version.
Fair enough. I actually meant that if someone debating the issue here chose to offer a more in depth, reasoned critique of science than lekatt’s nonsensical claims that scientists are oppressing him, I’d be pleased. It’s much easier to read brief discussions here than try to sit through an entire book of philosophy.
I stand corrected. Both calm and completely comprehensible. (“plucks my nuts”? What does that even mean? I’m sure someone out there has a sexual fetish for it, but I’m not aware of anyone.)
No doubt, and I wish nut-pluckers all the best, although I’m not quite sure what the mechanics would be. I myself am satisfied with my current assortment of deviations.