Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:43:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1224 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > Actually, no. I don't take it on faith. I didn't take "cold fusion" on
> > faith, for example. I usually adopt a wait and see attitude to see what
> > research supports or doesn't support an issue. I don't always agree with a
> > scientist's findings.
>
> Ah... but I would argue that you DO take their word on faith. If you see
> lots of scientific journals and read lots of articles about the experiments,
> do you not accept these as true on faith? If I write an article for
> Scientific American wherein I post some experiments that I've done matching
> experiements done elsewhere, comparing the results and drawing the
> conclusions, do you not take the results (both of my experiments and the
> others I quote) on faith?
See above: I don't always agree with a scientist's findings. So, no, I
didn't take it on faith. And there were a fair number of creditable
scientists that confirmed the cold fusion experiment (the problem not being
the results, but the test itself). The whole point of science is that the
scientist DIDN'T take it on faith. Science is skeptical by its very nature.
> Do you believe me that I performed the experiment?
The liklihood is high if you got it into Scientific American.
> Or do you doubt that I did it at all? What's to prevent it from being a big
> hoax unless you actually go out and PROVE that I did the experiment?
Try and write up a fake experiment and get it published in Scientific
American. Odds are you don't have any credentials to give your creditablity
and won't get past the circular file; if you do have credentials, then you
experiment itself will be judged by experts; and if you really do have
credentials, can fake specious but creditable results, you are simply
commiting professional suicide. Further, I may still not accept your
results. Prepared to be judged, not accepted on faith. Accepting things on
faith in science is a trap: see Piltdown Man.
> But do
> you think that's worth your time? No. Of course not.
Depends on the experiment, so no, your answer is incorrect.
> You've been shown time
> and again that articles of the type I've theoreticallly written for
> Scientific American are correct, and you're hence willing to accept it
> (provided it sounds plausible) on FAITH.
No, because my understanding of science leads me to believe the evidence
presented is accurate (but note again, I might decide it is flawed it).
>
> > > If you were a
> > > paleontologist (sp?) you'd be a lot more certain of evolution than you would
> > > be of, say, nuclear fission.
> >
> > Being less certain doesn't mean you simply are accepting things on faith.
>
> Ah, but as I say above, the extent to which you DO beleive IS accepted on
> faith. BUT, your level of surity increases when you've seen something firsthand.
When you speak of probablities, you are not refering to faith pretty much by
definition.
I guy at work saw David Blaine levitate on TV. It was real, he swore, it
really happened. I immediately levitated for him right there, no props, no
preparation. Then I showed him how it was done (purest of illusions). He
still thought Blaine really levitated. That's faith! :-)
>
> > > Not all do-- many just refute the theory itself without knowing why they
> > > have such a knee-jerk reaction to it. I don't presume that of Steve,
> > > however...
> >
> > They feel threatened by it (and to skip qualifying everything over and over,
> > not everyone and not necessarily Steve)..
>
> And, just to draw the parallel, you feel threatened by the opposite.
Improper parallel. Note I didn't refer to a specific person. You did (me).
Youy presume to speak for me on a number of ocassions.
> If God
> existed in the manner Steve suggests, that would threaten YOUR beliefs.
No, it doesn't. Think about it carefully. Perhaps you mean if God acted in
the manner Steve suggests. Even then, it wouldn't threaten my beliefs,
because the evidence would be different, and I'd have different beliefs.
> And
> that's precicely why we're here to argue :) -- because we all think we're
> right, and we want to test ourselves, test our theories (and others'), and
> attempt to share them.
>
> DaveE
I came here for an argument! ;-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) So-- you're basically saying that experiments quoted in Scientific American are very likely to be accurate, yes? Ok, to me, that's faith. You have faith in the fact that Scientific American's experiments are usually valid. Why do I call it (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) The issue that I'm bringing up elsewhere is in faith of perception. Not in the scientific method, per se, but with the data it examines being based on faith-- as for a SPECIFIC post... I dunno... if you've read them all (and the new ones since (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
