Human Devolution? Interesting Article...

by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sizemik

  I am strongly against leaning on that falsification process while tackling the big questions like "were we created by an intelligence?" or "Will life be allowed to cease to exist?" . . . sab

  These are not scientific questions . . . they are philosophical. To subject something to the falsification process, it must first have some substance (as in, have substantiating evidence that is testable). Philosophical ideas cannot be subject to the scientific method with any realistic expectation of success. Metaphorically . . . you can test for contaminants in a vacuum . . . but even if you do manage to find some and remove them (unlikely) through the scientific process . . . you're still left with a vacuum. A hypothesis is not the same as a philosophical idea. Strong evidence for the hypothetical claim must first be present. ID in scientific terms is a philosophical idea . . . and an extremely poor one.
• 

  sabastious

  The scientific paper said no such thing. I don't know if Shelby said this but from what I know she did post its clear she didn't understand the article she was writing about. No amount of explanation is ever going to change that.

  I think that conclusion is derived from this statement:

  We've become so smart, we’re getting stupid, new research shows.

  They say this "brain drain" has been going on for centuries. The printing press, and various other inventions that dramatically changed culture, was invented 200 odd years ago which would coincide with the beginning of the data. It could easily be said that as we develop tools (technology) we rely less on certain intelligences that developed while the tool didn't exist. This would be a "dumbing down" of the brain, but that doesn't actually mean we are stupider as a population (are we less effecient because we still have appendixes? They randomly explode every now and then). What it means is that we rely less on our brains and more on the tools we create in conjuncture with our brains. Just because we have a tool doesn't mean we cease to be creative with it. This could be said to be a purpose that was designed into our species. To start out as socially intelligent hunter gatherers and progress towards a less socially adept civilization and with a complex set of tools. Naturally if you measured the brains of the early hunter gatherers they are going to register differently than the city slickers of modern day. However the term "stupider" just doesn't fit and is highly sensational and attached to an agenda.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  I think it is off topic to discuss what atheists think and feel. I have made it clear that as an atheist I do not think and feel what you are suggesting. So I see nothing more to discuss about it because it will take the thread too far off topic. Also, we are meant to be discussing the article, not possible space travel outside or inside the universe.

  Sorry, I don't believe you because I know a concept called denial exists.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Okay, Sab, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion with you. It has become nearly impossible. You are all over the board, making assertions without support, playing by a different rule book, and assigning attitudes and motivations. There comes a moment when it is no longer constructive. I cannot have a scientific discussion with a person who views the scientific method with deep suspicion and extrapolating the motive behind the method until life has no meaning and we are all robots. Even saying that we won't ADMIT that we think we are organic robots but that what we really THINK, is deeply offensive, but more importantly, a conversation and thought stopper.

  Well, the way I look it at is that you can't handle this type of discussion. You have to take it personally. Remember I am not attacking you, just your ideas. It doesn't have to be "scientific discussion" that's your rule not mine. However it's been enlightening for me as usual, I am sorry you can't say the same.

  -Sab
• 

  still thinking
• 

  sizemik

  It could literally just be God's junkyard. . . . sab

  And that's a good example of a philosophical idea. It's also a poor one . . . apart from it's comedic merit.
• 

  sabastious

  These are not scientific questions . . . they are philosophical. To subject something to the falsification process, it must first have some substance (as in, have substantiating evidence that is testable). Philosophical ideas cannot be subject to the scientific method with any realistic expectation of success. Metaphorically . . . you can test for contaminants in a vacuum . . . but even if you do manage to find some and remove them (unlikely) through the scientific process . . . you're still left with a vacuum. A hypothesis is not the same as a philosophical idea. Strong evidence for the hypothetical claim must first be present. ID in scientific terms is a philosophical idea . . . and an extremely poor one.

  What do you tell a child that starts asking questions about the fate of the universe? The thing is do you have to give them "current doomsday" theories, do you leave room for hope somewhere? What if the sun decides to burp and kill us all? Can't you see how that could affect someone's motivation and drive?

  -Sab
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  What book that makes you dumber may look like....

  
• 

  sabastious

  And that's a good example of a philosophical idea. It's also a poor one . . . apart from it's comedic merit.

  So because the OP is a scientific article we are not allowed to discuss philosophy?

  -Sab
• 

  sizemik

  sab . . . your head is going to explode mate. Have a cup of tea.