Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:03:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1519 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> The problem with this example, though, is that once we posit the existence of
> a WayBack Machine, we have allowed for time traveling marvels in our
> universe.
Well, the point is really "what if you could see into the past", not necessarily
"what if you could travel to the past and do unspeakable things to temporal
continuity, as great of an April Fools that would be".
Again, let's say the WayBack machine is a machine that you personally built from
scratch based on a mathematical model of the universe, and it lets you see what
the past was like. Let's say you somehow were able to figure out the rules of
quantum physics, and iterate backwards through time to "predict" the past, and
you validated it by cross-checking known events, like the Roman empire,
colonization of the Americas, and what you ate for breakfast as a kid, that you
can actually remember.
And now let's say your wayback machine shows you the story of Genesis, as
described in the Bible. Effectively, since it doesn't have rules for *god*
creating things, it realizes (based on subatomic vectors and whatnot) that Adam
magically appeared through means your model couldn't explain. The model shows
that at one point he didn't exist, and then he did.
> > > Creationists love this tactic because it makes them feel that they've
> > > disproven evolution simply by making burdonsome demands and wearing out the
> > > patience of their opponent.
> >
> > Eh, I dunno. I tend to think that we've only gotten to the 2nd step or so in
> > your example.
>
> "We" as in you and I?
"We" as in the scientific community, I guess.
> I'd say that that's correct, sure. But creationists can
> and do demand ever increasing numbers of missing links; it's clear that no
> number of demonstrated links is ever likely to satisfy them, not even A and
> AAAAA...AAAAAAAAAAB.
I'm not sure that's true. At a certain point, the game stops being "ok, show me
another link", because the two creatures you've shown are pretty nearly the
same. Instead, they'd probably stop with *that* game and go to another one, like
"You can't prove that AAAAAAB and AAB and B and A didn't exist all at the same
time! I don't believe your radioactive carbon dating method is legitimate, these
animals just existed independantly." Basically, I think at some point they'd
have no choice but to cave, or simply emphatically deny you and accuse your
evidence as inaccurate rather than inconclusive.
> We may have no reason to refute it, but we have no strong evidence that she
> *actually* did love him. We may therefore choose to believe that she did, or
> we may accept that she did, based on what we know of the situation, but we
> can't logically conclude that she did.
> ...
> > Determining what 'love' is isn't an empirical analysis to begin with.
>
> Sure it is! The trick is that we don't often articulate it to ourselves that
> way (that is, pulling daisy petals doesn't count as empirical analysis!)
>
> When attempting to determine if Helga loves you, don't you formulate certain
> behaviors that Helga would have to demonstrate in order to "qualify" as
> loving you?
So what's the distinction between the George & Martha bit and the me & Helga
bit? Isn't the most I can determine about whether or not Helga loves me that she
professes it to be so? Just like in the G&M example, it's falsifiable. If we
found a letter from Martha to her sister wherein she said "Oh my crap. I hate
this George guy. I wish he never got me pregnant at 15 so I had to marry him."
I'd say that's empirical evidence to suggest that she DIDN'T love George, just
as letters signed "Love, Martha" would be evidence to support that she DID.
Effectively, my argument is that it's *sorta* empirical. Not science by any
means, but empirical nonetheless. My experiences as a human have shown me common
behaviors from people who "love" one another, and situation X seems to show that
person Y loves person Z. Hence, it's empirical because it's based on firsthand
evidence, but NOT empirical because it's not even a bona fide definable concept.
> That's exactly correct! Now, we're back to the problem of whether or not
> kids are adequately instructed in critical thought. I'm gratified to hear
> that your school made some effort in this regard, but I suspect that a great
> number of schools don't (and that doesn't even address the lack of motivation
> we talked about).
I agree to a certain extent, which is one of the reasons I'm actually leaning
even more towards teaching both. Continually presenting a single set of facts
and theories to kids has great potential to result in kids "believing" the
truth, rather than "accepting" it. But throwing multiple sets of ideas starts to
force them to decide. I like it.
> Sure, I have no problem with that. I'd add that some things can't be
> accepted-on-evidence and can only be believed, of which "faith" is probably
> the best example. However, since "belief" in that context is irreconcilably
> non-verifiable (barring the seratonin tricorder), "belief" should not drive
> science curricula.
Totally agree. I'm still sort of wondering where creationism belongs, though. I
sort of want to put it beside evolution because, like I said above, I want kids
to have to choose, not have the choice already made for them. However, like you
said (and I'd agree) I don't think it really *belongs* in science class. I
dunno. But regardless, I think I'm convincing myself that both *should* be
taught.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
