man
these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk
the correct answer is: maybe
and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter
its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept
Quote from: LHX on July 05, 2007, 10:04:15 PM
man
these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk
the correct answer is: maybe
and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter
its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept
LHX...
*shakes head*
Nevermind.
if they are getting more annoying (and personally I dont think they are)
its probably cause people who search for truth in nature and with rational thought are probably getting more and more aggravated with people who use scripture to ignore truth
the search for truth in nature seems to have its fair share of creative licence
there is a big problem with the widespread use of definitive statements
i dont know how this generation reconciles questioning the moon landing and 9/11 but has no problem buying into what other 'experts' have to say in other fields
there really is no problem with 'maybe'
Quote from: LHX on July 05, 2007, 10:04:15 PM
man
these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk
the correct answer is: maybe
and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter
its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept
(http://www.houseofonyx.com/pictures/5985_Dinosaur_Bone_Fossil.jpg)
35 foot tall, reptilian-like, SNAG looking for a nesting mate
I'm red and green and have feathers in all the right places
I like long walks on the beach and dining on other smaller dino-things
My mating cycle is once every 2 years and gestation lasts 7 months
Srsly ... can't you tell from the picture?
who cares where we came from?
history will have no flavor until there is a single civilization that has lasted at least 50,000 years. and there needs to be space travel.
everything before hyperdrive is foreplay.
Quote from: LHX on July 06, 2007, 04:47:32 AM
the search for truth in nature seems to have its fair share of creative licence
since it's partially my profession, let's just call it by it's name.
search for truth in nature = science.
so you say science has a creative license?
it doesn't. but the problem you try to see might be real. science has so little of creative license that the thing that scares it most, is the possibility of two paradigms existing at the same time. that is when you get a schism in the scientific community and everybody starts fighting and a few good profs drop out, but in the end everybody wants to agree.
but there is no problem with that.
it's too bad for the few profs that hold to their belief (like the astronomy guy who didn't believe in red-shift, found some evidence to back it up, and is now banned from just about every observatory in the world).
that's really a shame, but it merely slows things down a bit.
i don't even know if it would be better if it were otherwise, it also seems a bit like a good survival strategy for science as a whole.
Quotethere is a big problem with the widespread use of definitive statements
what??
sorry to ask, but do you have any idea what you're talking about?
for starters, i really think you have no idea about the use of "definite statements" in actual science, the work that is being done at universities, research facilities etc, the people that make hypotheses, experiments and compare results mainly for the heck of it (ok, they do it for some sort of fame, and out of love, actually), compared to TV Science, whatever discovery channel is telling you about evolution, the guys that rant against the creationists, the flying spaghetti people, the people that jumped on a bandwagon towards their new crusade.
now again, can't really complain about that, because the creationists are at least several orders of magnitude more stupid,
but please don't go dissing science because the general public caught wind of it but doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Quotei dont know how this generation reconciles questioning the moon landing and 9/11 but has no problem buying into what other 'experts' have to say in other fields
well i consider myself to be an expert.
also, you wanna know how i reconcile it?
peer reviewed papers and repeatable experiments with results.
yeah that's right.
and if you are now going to say "but you can't repeat evolution", shows what you know about the scientific process.
Quote
there really is no problem with 'maybe'
maybe not.
there are a good many things that maybe can have a maybe attached to it.
it would have been better to attach the "maybe" to that red-shift problem, the phenomenon at least deserved some decent research (though it's now a few decades later and we know moar still)
but in that case, there existed really two reasonably viable alternatives.
now when you look at evolution, creationism is not a viable alternative. it is utter bullshit.
if you wanna attach a "maybe" to evolution, come up with something, come up with an alternative that might actually work, that fits the data.
and believe me, scientists are actually already doing that. always trying to come up with viable alternatives.
but as long as there is only one that actually works, yeah, they're going to treat it as a "definite statement", fact. because that is what science does.
the best working hypothesis is not the same as fact
the thinker thinks and the prover proves
im not so sure that creationism isnt a 'viable alternative' - it seems more and more that for many it is just a less comfortable alternative
like vex said - who gives a fuck in the first place?
'science' clearly isnt putting any of these findings to any practical use that suggests any genuine benefit for the current civilization
"the search for truth in nature" often seems like another ego quest for peer acclaim
just because it gets expressed as fact doesnt mean the creative licence isnt there
its just denied or well-hidden
and stating that something is 'partially your profession' really doesnt have much to do with anything
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 06, 2007, 02:15:40 AM
Quote from: LHX on July 05, 2007, 10:04:15 PM
man
these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk
the correct answer is: maybe
and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter
its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept
LHX...
*shakes head*
Nevermind.
sometimes we shake our heads
sometimes our heads get shook
OMG PROFOUND
Quote from: LHX on July 06, 2007, 12:10:58 PM
the best working hypothesis is not the same as fact
yeah but science is gonna treat it as fact. otherwise they can't continue. standing on the shoulders of giants who might not even be there.
Quoteim not so sure that creationism isnt a 'viable alternative' - it seems more and more that for many it is just a less comfortable alternative
i dunno what you think creationism is, but all the alternatives i heard about them are pretty much bullshit. it either just doesn't make sense and shoots itself in the foot (yeah the fossils were placed there to test our faith hmhm) [just like FSMism] or it ends up in some sort of unfalsifiable philosophic point similar to Last Thursdayism.
also, evolution theory explains just about a zillion mysterious things up to great detail (and raises just as many questions that scientists love to sink their teeth in), whereas creationism says "god made it", answers nothing, and raises a billion questions that creationists rather turn their eye away from.
if you're serious about this, please explain why you are not so sure that creationism isn't a viable alternaive.
Quotelike vex said - who gives a fuck in the first place?
well apparently you do, cause you started a thread about it.
also, i do. and i'm pretty sure BMW does too.
Quote'science' clearly isnt putting any of these findings to any practical use that suggests any genuine benefit for the current civilization
what??
really, i take offense to that, i'm a scientist.
i guess i should start taking up theology classes then eh, at least then i'll be of some use to civilisation (!)
Quote"the search for truth in nature" often seems like another ego quest for peer acclaim
yeah, just like anything else, it's not perfect. i do agree that some scientists do not see this, but the institute of science is not free from cabbageness either.
i'm all for admitting the flaws of the scientific community, but it's still got way more merit than creationism.
Quotejust because it gets expressed as fact doesnt mean the creative licence isnt there
that also wasn't my point.
it's expressed as fact, because that's necessary to be able to work from there to new facts.
instead of "fact" they should of course say "best working hypothesis", but the intention is the same. also it's pretty much the closest to "fact" you can get.
Quoteits just denied or well-hidden
please tell me where it is hidden?
Quoteand stating that something is 'partially your profession' really doesnt have much to do with anything
well it does mean that i have some knowledge about how science actually works. it means that when you say "science is XXXX" and i say it's not, i know i'm right because i know what i am doing, what my professors are doing and what the people who wrote those millions of papers have been doing.
it also means that if you go around making uninformed statements about what you perceive to be science and you draw conclusions from that to put it at the same level as creationism, i'm going to feel the need to defend it, because partially and indirectly, you are also making uninformed statements about me.
Quote from: LHX on July 06, 2007, 12:12:15 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 06, 2007, 02:15:40 AM
Quote from: LHX on July 05, 2007, 10:04:15 PM
man
these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk
the correct answer is: maybe
and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter
its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept
LHX...
*shakes head*
Nevermind.
sometimes we shake our heads
sometimes our heads get shook
OMG PROFOUND
Actually, I decided it wouldn't be beneficial to talk about evolution, the real definition of 'scientific theory', and scientific method.
I would be repeating myself. It may be true, and factual, but it isn't endearing and agreeable, and it certainly won't benefit you. So its not the right time.
Quote from: triple zero on July 06, 2007, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: LHX on July 06, 2007, 12:10:58 PM
the best working hypothesis is not the same as fact
yeah but science is gonna treat it as fact. otherwise they can't continue. standing on the shoulders of giants who might not even be there.
Okay, maybe just a small thing, zero. Its true, a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly by experiments and evidence and has failed to be dismissed. However, there is nothing indisputable about science. If there was real repeatable evidence against a theory, it would have to be changed or discarded, in order to fit that evidence.
Generally, continuing and moving forward in science is gathering more evidence, supporting or dissmissing theories, old or new.
But what do I know? I'm just an entomologist right?
I think, after reading the spaces between the lines of LHX, that what he meant* was something along the lines of:
"While dedicated scientists make careful distinctions between their
[hypotheses, theories, experimental results]
and
[the things they have not tested yet and therefore cannot comment on with any certainty],
there are a large amount of people who have not fully read the scientific literature, nor have fully grasped the concepts, and then talk about
[things they do not completely understand],
and
[things which the literature do not cover]
and subsequently make broad and erroneous statements which they stubbornly cling to with the tenacity of a funamental creationist christian. I don't like that."
*If LHX feels I got this completely wrong, I apologize. I have no intention of putting words into anyone's mouth.
yeah I read his post as more of an attack on the way that language is being used
than an attack on evolution or the scientific process
*says a prayer for everyone whose parents were killed by science*
Quote from: LHX on July 05, 2007, 10:04:15 PM
man
these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk
the correct answer is: maybe
and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter
its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept
I've gotta say I totally agree with this. There are some evolutionists who can be just as dogmatic and closeminded to other ideas as fundamentalist religious-types.
We have to remember that we only live in a blink of time compared to the time in which our planet and universe has existed. Even if you throw in the less technology advanced science from 1000 years ago and beyond, humans still have only had a small sliver of time to study something that has been going on for millions of years.
Now, that's not to say science hasn't figured some things out. Obviously they have. But you have to admit, since none who were alive when evolution, or whatever it was happened, you have to put some degree of faith into that science. Again, for perspective, how long has the theory of evolution been around compared to how long humans have been around? How long has the theory of evolution been around compared to how long the Earth and the Universe has been around?
While I find no fault in placing faith in a theory like evolution I also find no fault in entertaining the "maybe" that it could eventually proved to be wrong.
There's no doubt that peer reviewed science does contain a higher standard and value of validity. However, the peers that are reviewing the research are just as human and fallible as the original researcher. I myself find it more likely that something like evolution took place compared to a "creationist" theory. But, I think there is room for doubt in both of those.
And I don't think that is a bad thing.
Quote from: LHX on July 06, 2007, 04:47:32 AM
i dont know how this generation reconciles questioning the moon landing and 9/11 but has no problem buying into what other 'experts' have to say in other fields
I would definitely agree with this.
That is not to say that I don't agree with evolution, but on the other hand, I don't think the moon landing was some crazy conspiracy.
000 and BMW are right. However, I don't feel that LHX is necessarily talking about people like them, who actually KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE SAYING. I think he's speaking more to the people who are like Bible thumpers--they throw around ideologies without thinking them through or really getting a good understanding of what they are doing or saying.
And yeah, that's obnoxious.
Sorry, I just lost my train of thought. I had more to say, so this might seem incomplete or void. That's because I lost it. Sorry.
For example:
"A woman's brain is one-third the size of men's. It's science, you can look it up."
\
(http://www.lomblad.net/rob/archives/blogimages/anchorman.jpg)
I also think he's talking about the other side of the coin, how blindly, and unquestioningly, some people follow the ideas of experts much like a parishoner blindly follows their faith. I think a good example is Al Gore. I have no doubt that Al Gore is a learned man who is intelligent. However, he is NOT a scientist. He certainly isn't an expert on Global Warming, at least not on the same level as a scientist and researcher. He's really more of a spokesman for Global Warming. Which is fine. However, if people are really interested in the science and knowledge behind Global Warming, they need to stop listening to his yap and read the literature. Just watching the movie doesn't automatically make them informed. Of course, many will. But, there will be many more who will think all of a sudden they are a qualified advocate because they listened to him talk for a few minutes on the Today Show.
Quote from: triple zero on July 06, 2007, 12:30:22 PM
Quotelike vex said - who gives a fuck in the first place?
well apparently you do, cause you started a thread about it.
also, i do. and i'm pretty sure BMW does too.
was that really the main point of the original post?
read it again
Quote from: triple zero on July 06, 2007, 12:30:22 PM
Quote'science' clearly isnt putting any of these findings to any practical use that suggests any genuine benefit for the current civilization
what??
really, i take offense to that, i'm a scientist.
i guess i should start taking up theology classes then eh, at least then i'll be of some use to civilisation (!)
way to attribute things to me that i didnt say homie
thats productive
are you offended by what i posted? or are you just looking for a reason to get offended?
Quote from: triple zero on July 06, 2007, 12:30:22 PM
Quote"the search for truth in nature" often seems like another ego quest for peer acclaim
yeah, just like anything else, it's not perfect. i do agree that some scientists do not see this, but the institute of science is not free from cabbageness either.
i'm all for admitting the flaws of the scientific community, but it's still got way more merit than creationism.
man
please re-read the original post
please
Quote from: triple zero on July 06, 2007, 12:30:22 PM
Quoteits just denied or well-hidden
please tell me where it is hidden?
motive
Quote from: triple zero on July 06, 2007, 12:30:22 PM
Quoteand stating that something is 'partially your profession' really doesnt have much to do with anything
well it does mean that i have some knowledge about how science actually works. it means that when you say "science is XXXX" and i say it's not, i know i'm right because i know what i am doing, what my professors are doing and what the people who wrote those millions of papers have been doing.
it also means that if you go around making uninformed statements about what you perceive to be science and you draw conclusions from that to put it at the same level as creationism, i'm going to feel the need to defend it, because partially and indirectly, you are also making uninformed statements about me.
maybe thats the difference
i dont really know what exactly it is that im doing
and i dont pretend to know either
but
i am willing to mention when something begins to look more and more like bullshit
what i do know is that i am a big supporter of scrutiny and sound reasoning
and nothing you have said really convinces me that my original post lacks foundation
LMNO and RWHN, in two rather different ways, have hit the nail rather squarely on its head.
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on July 06, 2007, 02:31:32 PM
.... in two rather different ways, have hit the nail rather squarely on its head.
In this lies the beauty of the universe
ok good i think i know where you're coming from
if we take "those evolution folks" to mean the people who almost religiously defend evolution against whatever, and not the scientists who are actually worth their research grant and know wtf they're doing, then yes, in fact i think i already conceeded that point.
but it's the "maybe" that seems like you want to attribute the same amount of validity to creationist theory as to evolution theory that just doesn't fly with me.
i'm all for an alternative theory to evolution if we found one, but it does need to be one that accounts for all the things we found to be right about evolution so far, and then explains some more.
which is what is being done right now anyway, that evolution theory is still being refined as we speak, loosened up a bit here, tightened a bit there, only it's still called "evolution", because although the thing Darwin came up with is definitely surpassed and possibly even wrong (BMW correct me here, but afaik Darwin made some mistakes), but still not entirely different enough to call it something else than "evolution".
Quote from: LHX on July 06, 2007, 02:31:14 PM
are you offended by what i posted? or are you just looking for a reason to get offended?
well i can't help but be a littlebit offended. see i know you mean well, but that also means i take the things you say to some value. usually i don't get all worked up about when somebody says these things, because i'd get very tired if i were to. but i don't want to lay down your words besides me and think "yeah whatever let him talk".
it's just that if you want to put the same amount of validity to creationism as to evolution, that kinda feels a bit like a little slap in the face to me, unless i would think "yeah whatever let him talk".
now possibly you didn't mean that at all, but your first post was stated vague enough to go either way, but was actually having a hard time reading much else into it either.
if you just wanted to say what i said in my second paragraph of this post, you could have also worded it a tad more specific.
so in short:
1) the scientific community has its flaws. there are indeed large forces of ego, peer pressure and not in the least corporate sponsoring, that stand in the way of integrity.
2) there are people that defend some things they heard as being "science" with equal zealotry as the religious fundies, and that's also a bad thing.
now i'm gonna stop here, but if you want to draw conclusions from the above two points, i suggest to draw them carefully :)
I think I see an issue here.
"Maybe" seems to be an important word, but I'm not sure it should be used to make two ideas equivalent.
Maybe I'll finish work to day and then build some shelves for my wife.
Maybe I'll leave work early, strip down to my underwear, and go around taking dumps on police cars.
Yes, both are possible, but the likelyhood of one happening over the other is immense.*
It's like Maybe Logic: Just because nothing is 100% true, doesn't mean everything is equally true.
*(it's the former, for no reason other than I don't have enough copies of the PD to wipe my ass.)
The way I read the OP, it had nothing to do with the evolution-vs-creation debate.
It had to do with getting your grid so fixed that it becomes more important than the reality you're supposed to be seeing through it.
Saying that "maybe" is a good thing doesn't mean you should accept blatantly false information as possibly accurate. It means that "blatantly true" is usually an illusion. Including "maybe" leaves you some room to adjust to new evidence. Good science is based on "maybe," and rarely gets any more concrete than "probably."
well okay in that case (what LMNO said), i guess i don't really have a beef with the OP .. i think. maybe.
Quote from: triple zero on July 06, 2007, 04:54:32 PM
well okay in that case (what LMNO said), i guess i don't really have a beef with the OP .. i think. maybe.
I think the problem is that the two of us aren't the audience that LHX is writing for.
too bad, i usually enjoy being LHXs audience :)
anybody who claims to know the history of civilization is talking shit
plain and simple
but some people deliver it as tho their version is actual
with no possibility for error
WHICH
from my perspective - is just as bad as somebody who tries to holler in your ear that a old man with a grey beard built shit in 6 days and then took a nap
Quote from: triple zero on July 06, 2007, 06:50:06 PM
too bad, i usually enjoy being LHXs audience :)
I ment it in the same way that I wouldn't talk to a bunch of summer tourists gathered by a riverside in the way I would talk to a college professor of entomology, and vice versa.
Quote from: LHX on July 06, 2007, 07:17:00 PM
anybody who claims to know the history of civilization is talking shit
plain and simple
but some people deliver it as tho their version is actual
with no possibility for error
WHICH
from my perspective - is just as bad as somebody who tries to holler in your ear that a old man with a grey beard built shit in 6 days and then took a nap
See? We're not the audience. Once again I made fool of self.
Science strikes me as a reality grid.
No different from any other reality grid, in that it only exists in the minds of those who believe in it.
But, as a reality grid, I think it's one of the strongest and most useful.
Science will state that if you do A then B will happen (every fucking time as far as we have observed)
Deity based reality grids will invariably put it down to some divine will or plan or maybe angels
The spawn of deity based grids is, on the upside, social cohesion and a perceived meaning to an existence which can appear frustratingly meaningless at times.
On the downside, deity based grids have the potential to exploit the naturally gullible condition of believers for the purpose of all manner of Jihads and Inquisitions.
The spawn of the scientific grid is, on the upside, technology and the ability to push the limits of what a human being or group of human beings is capable of accomplishing and experiencing.
On the downside, technology can make a real fucking mess at times and put us all in danger of extinction.
I'm a gambler to a degree - I enjoy my existence more if there is a risk of fucking things up completely and dying and stuff. Don't ask me why, I can't explain it but, for this reason and several others, I prefer science.
But it's still nothing more than a reality grid.
It aint anymore real than Jehova.
Quote from: SillyCybin on July 07, 2007, 09:15:22 AM
Science strikes me as a reality grid.
No different from any other reality grid, in that it only exists in the minds of those who believe in it.
But, as a reality grid, I think it's one of the strongest and most useful.
Science will state that if you do A then B will happen (every fucking time as far as we have observed)
Deity based reality grids will invariably put it down to some divine will or plan or maybe angels
The spawn of deity based grids is, on the upside, social cohesion and a perceived meaning to an existence which can appear frustratingly meaningless at times.
On the downside, deity based grids have the potential to exploit the naturally gullible condition of believers for the purpose of all manner of Jihads and Inquisitions.
The spawn of the scientific grid is, on the upside, technology and the ability to push the limits of what a human being or group of human beings is capable of accomplishing and experiencing.
On the downside, technology can make a real fucking mess at times and put us all in danger of extinction.
I'm a gambler to a degree - I enjoy my existence more if there is a risk of fucking things up completely and dying and stuff. Don't ask me why, I can't explain it but, for this reason and several others, I prefer science.
But it's still nothing more than a reality grid.
It aint anymore real than Jehova.
Lets put it this way. You can spout all kinds of things about a flat earth being a reality grid, or a terracentric solarsystem being a reality grid, or even a disc shaped world carried on the back of four elephants and supported by a giant sea turtle a reality grid.
But the earth revolves around the sun regardless.
Sez you.
D/N/T science.
Science: created Rogers MIND RAYS!
Quote from: LHX on July 05, 2007, 10:04:15 PM
man
these evolution folk are getting almost as aggravating as fundamental religious folk
the correct answer is: maybe
and depending on the context - it generally doesnt matter
its still (quite) possible that the 'real' history hasnt even been fathomed yet
and is more strange that what a person would readily accept
I agree that dogmatic historians and scientists can look as foolish as creationists and turbaniacs. But I'm curious as to where you've been noticing this...
Which evolutionists are you referring to?
When doesn't it matter?
Quote from: Payne on July 09, 2007, 02:33:26 AM
D/N/T science.
Science: created Rogers MIND RAYS!
Exactly.
And that is why it must be destroyed.
I would have a world of God-fearing peasants, with no technology. And disease running rampant.
And Free-roaming cattle in the desert, and Nigeria. :lulz:
don't forget, without science we could all eat buffalo since billions of them could fit in the average petting zoo.