[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

Suicide Junkie · #1 March 16th, 2003, 03:31 AM

Quote:

For example there was a recent thread on Usenet about some biology professor would would not allow students to graduate unless they asserted that they 'believed in' evolution.

That prof could use a smack upside the head

Requiring a real understanding of it is certainly not a problem. Without learning the strengths and weaknesses of the current theories, what chance do you have of improving things?

I'm not a chemistry major, but I'm sure there must have been some good uses for the phlogiston theory. Chemical reactions are what it is good for, rather than mechanical things. ISTM that "Phlogiston concentration" would relate to the degree of oxidation.
It was not correct, but it was not totally wrong in a practical sense.

Andr�s · #2 March 16th, 2003, 04:29 AM

Can you quote or post me a link to this new evidence that supposedly disproves evolution.

Most of what I've found ar the same scientifically wrong points raised once and again by creationists.
And now some who claim not to be creationists, although they repeat their points, and yet fail to provide any reasonable explanation.

I any case I fail to see a motive for "evil evolutionists" to censor the truth and contiue their lie, as some claim.

Fyron · #3 March 16th, 2003, 04:30 AM

BM:
A few sad stories are not indicative of the whole of the scientific community. Scientists are people, after all. People make mistakes.

The theory of evolution is not a valid sample of science as a whole from which to base such sweeping statements about science being a kind of religion.

Evolution is not wrong. The evidence used in the past may well have been flawed, but so what. The currently accepted theory of evolution might not be 100% accurate, but neither were Newton's laws of gravitation. They only represented a special case of relativity. Once we learn more about genetics and such, we will be able to formulate a more precise theory of evolution. All evidence points to some sort of evolutionary processes. We of course do not fully understand them at the present time, but this is not a grounds to fully deny evolution. It is also not grounds to call science a type of religion. Religious beliefs are based off of: "We say it is this way, so it is this way". Scientific beliefs are based off of: "We see this evidence. We have a theory that the evidence seems to corroborate, amongst other theories. But, this one fits the evidence better than the others, so this theory looks like the best to use. Once we get more evidence, we can re-evaluate our theory, to see if we were right or not."

Since scientists are people, they are allowed to make mistakes. They try to minimize their errors, but they can not catch them all.

Gryphin · #4 March 16th, 2003, 04:36 AM

I don't have nearly enough education or background to contribute to any of the arguments proffered here. One of the most frequently used words in this thread is
"Theory"
I thought I might offer an idea of what "Theory" means. In short it means that the concept has not been proven.
http://thinkertools.soe.berkeley.edu.../c_theory.html
Maybe everyone knows this but it seems a lot of the theorys here are being presented as fact. Then again this could be my lack of understanding and could be atributed to "he's off his meds again"

Fyron · #5 March 16th, 2003, 04:42 AM

Gryphin, when used in Scientific terms, a Hypothesis is an unproven assumption about how something will work. A Theory is a hypothesis that is backed by proper evidence and experimentation, so it can be taken to be true. A Law is something that has been proven to be correct in all cases, and can be taken as a universal fact (until we find more situations in which the law could apply, and we have ot test it out to see if it is true, or if it is a special case of the bigger picture, like Newton's laws of gravitation and force).

This is another example of how dictionary definitions are not good to rely on for complex terms.

Andr�s · #6 March 16th, 2003, 05:00 AM

http://www.concannon.net/wilmer/Wilmer's%20WebPage/SCIMETH.htm ] SCIENTIFIC METHOD [/url]

Edit: Link refuses to appear like a link.

[ March 16, 2003, 03:04: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

Baron Munchausen · #7 March 16th, 2003, 05:06 AM

Well, I see why Fyron is repeating himself so much. People won't see what is right in from of their faces if it doesn't meet their pre-conceived notions.

http://www.alternativescience.com/sc...censorship.htm is a page featuring some relatively recent (in the Last decade) examples of the scientific establishment refusing to allow criticism of evolution. You can probably do some reasearch Online and find other sources to prove that these people exist and what is describe really happened.

http://www.alternativescience.com is the main site, which includes some pages on 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism' a major book which lays out in fairly simple terms how the Darwinian picture of evolution doesn't work and never has.

http://www.alternativescience.com/sh...-Darwinism.htm is the direct link to the book outline and contents.

It's not about 'new' evidence. It's about the fraud of asserting that the old evidence was adequate. It wasn't. And anyone with academic or scientific credentials will be run out of their jobs for attempting to point this out. The author of this book, a professional journalist rather than an academic, was subjected to considerable attacks, including the usual character assassination and behind-the-scenes blacklisting.

Fyron:

The 'few sad cases' listed on that site are just what that one author is aware of. There is much, much more if you want to do some research. So in fact scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high. Science in the 'real world' is just like religion. I keep putting the evidence in front of your face and you keep refusing to acknowledge it. You are doing exactly what you accuse the 'religious' types of doing. Rejecting anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. As I said, there is far less difference between the so-called 'scientific' world view and the religious one than you or most people want to believe. And you are demonstrating it right here and now.

How do you assert that 'Evolution is not wrong.' when there is no proof that it is right? You keep saying that religion makes arbitrary assertions and then assert that science must be right even if it didn't have the evidence before and doesn't have it now. Huh? An honest 'scientist' would admit that we have no idea how life came to be how it is. Do you see the difference between asserting something is right because it's 'science' and 'not religion' versus simply admitting there is no certainty?