sinequanon:


See what I mean, folks.

His assumption is that I share his religion of Dawkins has "dealt with" it, and I must be criticizing the science because I don't know that "Dawkins has dealt with it".

The God delusion was written precisely for religious layfolk whose minds get blown just following what the hypothesis says, to the extent that they have nothing left with which to critique it.

I see three main position in Intelligent Design...

1. ToE has "overwhelming evidence" that there is no intelligent design.

2. ToE has insufficient or very little evidence that there is no intelligent design.

3. There is intelligent design.

The current trick scientists are using to try to dismiss 2. is to lump it with 3. --- Show us the intelligent designer --> dismiss 3 --> dismiss 2 which we have lumped with 3. When you see scientists conspiring to pull stunts like that, their entire field comes under question, and those who believe them are doing so as a religion.

In other words, any book that i read,it means I am following the religion of the author? Right?

You see why I call you an idi.ot? Not because I just want to insult you but because you keep giving me more reasons to see you as one every time I try to have a meaningful discussion with you.

Do you know that what you call Dawkins religion splitted people into 7 categories where he admitted that people have varying degrees of beliefs in an intelligent designer(GOD) starting from 100% belief in an intelligent designer to 0% belief in an intelligent design, I am not sure you have read the "religious" book for you to make such an assumption that he lumped 2 & 3 together. He gave logical reasons why intelligent design is very unlikely,he didn't just join 2&3 as one,like you said. No you haven't read the book because he addressed that too.

If a designer is required to make something complex,then another more complex designer is required to make the designer leading to an infinite regress. That's one of his arguments, debunk it.

Before you were against Christianity who believe in intelligent design,now you are supporting it in a way.

You are trying to hold different contradictory beliefs at once So that you won't be put inside any belief system, limited edition things,one of a kind person. Man go for a check up, you are exhibiting signs of cognitive dissonance. g

LOL! He read the book and he didn't even understand the example he gave! It has nothing to do with the 3 positions I outlined.

sinequanon:
LOL! He read the book and he didn't even understand the example he gave! It has nothing to do with the 3 positions I outlined.

I have modified it.

sinequanon:
LOL! He read the book and he didn't even understand the example he gave! It has nothing to do with the 3 positions I outlined.

Can you give me sufficient evidence that FSM doesn't exist? If not then FSM must exist. That's ur logic right?

sinequanon:
Kay

I said that scientists define science. I didn't say that they have a free hand.

(Just as parliament makes the laws of the land, they still do not have a free hand. They can be corrupt, etc., but the laws they pass are still "validly" the laws of the land. That does not mean that a law to enslave everyone could make its way through parliament.)

I think it is true of any consensus based system that it has a constitution with some fundamental Acts which, if removed, would destroy the system.

I do not think it is possible for scientists to rework or corrupt the fundamental basis of science to arbitrary extent, without destroying the consensual platform and definition under which they operate.

Better. That is why I always ask questions so as not to misunderstand people.

This brings my mind to 'paradigm shifts' as postulated by Thomas Kuhn. Thomas Kuhn took a historical review of scientific enquirys over centuries, beginning with Aristotle. He noticed and was surprised how infantile most of Aristotle's findings in physics. Aristotle seem to have synthesized his thoughts on metaphyics and ethics with physics. Hence Kuhn's curiosity on the workings of science was born. And he made a beautiful discovery which furthers the progress of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

Karl Popper has his say here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy

I can still remember when the Op told me that he has seen ghost before,but still can't describe them, how is that possible? You see something and you still can't describe it. Those who understand Neuroscience well would know that the Op hallucinates.

You brain is playing tricks on you. If you believe in ghosts So much,you would definitely see them,it's very easy for the brain to project mental imagination into our reality,so I understand your dilemma Op.

Kay17:
This brings my mind to 'paradigm shifts' as postulated by Thomas Kuhn. Thomas Kuhn took a historical review of scientific enquirys over centuries, beginning with Aristotle. He noticed and was surprised how infantile most of Aristotle's findings in physics. Aristotle seem to have synthesized his thoughts on metaphyics and ethics with physics. Hence Kuhn's curiosity on the workings of science was born. And he made a beautiful discovery which furthers the progress of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

Karl Popper has his say here.

So far, just skimmed the Popper article.

In the Paradigm Shift article, the sort of paradigm shifts they are talking about did not affect the definition of what a scientific experiment is.

There are different levels in a system of model construction -- meta-models (maybe you are familiar with UML). In the article, what is shifting is not the fundamental meta-model. For example, long held ideas about simultaneity that were discarded in the Theory of Relativity were not part of the fundamental meta-model of physics. On the other hand, what constitutes a scientific experiment IS part of the fundamental meta-model. That hasn't undergone a paradigm shift.

sinequanon:


So far, just skimmed the Popper article.

In the Paradigm Shift article, the sort of paradigm shifts they are talking about did not affect the definition of what a scientific experiment is.

There are different levels in a system of model construction -- meta-models (maybe you are familiar with UML). In the article, what is shifting is not the fundamental meta-model. For example, long held ideas about simultaneity that were discarded in the Theory of Relativity were not part of the fundamental meta-model of physics. On the other hand, what constitutes a scientific experiment IS part of the fundamental meta-model. That hasn't undergone a paradigm shift.

I doubt if Kuhn was in the same mind as you are in. Kuhn says of the paradigm shift as ' change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science'. His words are clear, he was working on the larger picture of science as a system and the epistemological issues surrounding it. This in turn could affect the purpose of experiments within science.

Kay17:


I doubt if Kuhn was in the same mind as you are in. Kuhn says of the paradigm shift as ' change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science'. His words are clear, he was working on the larger picture of science as a system and the epistemological issues surrounding it. This in turn could affect the purpose of experiments within science.

That is not in quotes in the article. I don't know whose words they are.

In any case, none of the examples in the article, and none of the 12 examples following the article of paradigm shifts in the natural sciences, are shifts in the fundamental definition of what constitutes a scientific experiment. That is what I said.

Science does have a character, which, although it doesn't define science, is inalienable from science. I don't think that there could be a paradigm shift away from that character without having to call the result something other than "science".

sinequanon:


That is not in quotes in the article. I don't know whose words they are.

In any case, none of the examples in the article, and none of the 12 examples following the article of paradigm shifts in the natural sciences, are shifts in the fundamental definition of what constitutes a scientific experiment. That is what I said.

Science does have a character, which, although it doesn't define science, is inalienable from science. I don't think that there could be a paradigm shift away from that character without having to call the result something other than "science".

I think the language 'basic assumptions/paradigms' fully makes my point. Whatever constitutes a scientific experiment safely falls under paradigm.

PastorAIO:


It is impossible for the theory to verified, or for any scientist to make predictions on the basis of the theory.

what in this universe gives you that idea?

Dapo777:
I can still remember when the Op told me that he has seen ghost before,but still can't describe them, how is that possible? You see something and you still can't describe it. Those who understand Neuroscience well would know that the Op hallucinates.

You brain is playing tricks on you. If you believe in ghosts So much,you would definitely see them,it's very easy for the brain to project mental imagination into our reality,so I understand your dilemma Op.

Yeah , just like one lady friend was telling me how an angel came to her and spoke to her. I said ok, fine, now tell me what the angel was wearing" was he wearing cotton, wool or silk robes, what style were the robes, was it round neck or v-neck, was he wearing sandals or shoes with heals or flat, with strings or with buckles, leather or synthetic material, or was he barefooted, what about his skin complexion and hair, what style of hair was he wearing ?
I asked asked her to describe the angel's accent, was it Queen's english, American english, pidgin english or igbo?

Well, as you can guess, she suddenly developed amnesia and could not remember any one of the above. Yet she was sure that an angel had appeared to her and had spoken to her.

And this moronic op criticizes science for not investigating things they could not measure.

plaetton:


Yeah , just like one lady friend was telling me how an angel came to her and spoke to her. I said ok, fine, now tell me what the angel was wearing" was he wearing cotton, wool or silk robes, what style were the robes, was it round neck or v-neck, was he wearing sandals or shoes with heals or flat, with strings or with buckles, leather or synthetic material, or was he barefooted, what about his skin complexion and hair, what style of hair was he wearing ?
I asked asked her to describe the angel's accent, was it Queen's english, American english, pidgin english or igbo?

Well, as you can guess, she suddenly developed amnesia and could not remember any one of the above. Yet she was sure that an angel had appeared to her and had spoken to her.

And this moronic op criticizes science for not investigating things they could not measure.

Lol

Kay17:


I think the language 'basic assumptions/paradigms' fully makes my point. Whatever constitutes a scientific experiment safely falls under paradigm.

It may describe your point, but there is no precedent for it in practice. As I said, there is no possibility of it, even if anyone pretends that there is.

It is called a CATCH 22.

It is just as if you always wore blue goggles (which you think hold the answer to the universe and everything) and the world looked blue. Somebody tells you that there is a color red. You say, "prove it, by showing me the colour red". They tell you to take off your goggles. You tell them "no, not until you show me the colour red."

i.e, you are prepared to make the "paradigm shift" (take off your goggles) if they show you the colour red, first. errrh.......

Answer: you can't see red with your blue goggles -- and we can all go home, happy to live in our various worlds.

sinequanon:


It may describe your point, but there is no precedent for it in practice. As I said, there is no possibility of it, even if anyone pretends that there is.

It is called a CATCH 22.

It is just as if you always wore blue goggles (which you think hold the answer to the universe and everything) and the world looked blue. Somebody tells you that there is a color red. You say, "prove it, by showing me the colour red". They tell you to take off your goggles. You tell them "no, not until you show me the colour red."

i.e, you are prepared to make the "paradigm shift" (take off your goggles) if they show you the colour red, first. errrh.......

Answer: you can't see red with your blue goggles -- and we can all go home, happy to live in our various worlds.

You mean there is no precedent in respect to the definition of experiments?

Kay17:


You mean there is no precedent in respect to the definition of experiments?

There has been no paradigm shift in what constitutes scientific evidence. Science assumes that everything is governed by fixed laws, making evidence predictable, reproducible and repeatable and subject to cause and effect.

^^
That's your opinion.

I on the other hand, think the assumptions can be changed, just as assumption supporting the varying philosophies likewise change.

sinequanon:

However, I would be interested in hearing from a balanced atheist, who has arrived at his position through critical thought, and is confident enough in his belief system to call it as it is -- his subjectively preferred belief system. Then we can talk about what atheism delivers.

Odd enough, I am not an atheist with a belief system as such, and especially not one of materialism, so I've stolen Christianity as an epistemological system, but without the belief.

Your op sounds more like setting up straw just so you have something to attack.

What, pray tell, is the ""Gospels" of Transcendentalism"?