by cofty 192 Replies latest social current
Sounds a bit like those "I can't see why..." argument so loathed by atheists.
"I can't see why we should bother being exact about the limits of our knowledge when expressing ourselves."
Fine suit yourself. So long as you know you are playing a game of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing a song until incongruous comments go away.
Yes it's very bad theology and even worse science. The gap for god keeps getting smaller as scientific knowledge grows.-cofty
I am afraid I would disagree with that statement cofty. How about the science of moving sub-atomic particles in solids? Science has discovered this, can explain it, but cannot change or create what exists, in sub-atomic orbitals.
Plus we can't ignore fake results, from cantleave's post. Motives that are possibly trying to negate the need for a Creator.
cofty, do you believe all scientists are atheist? If not, those that believe in an intelligent creator, do you view as not credible?
Kate xx
Yes it's very bad theology and even worse science. The gap for god keeps getting smaller as scientific knowledge grows.-cofty
I am afraid I would disagree with that statement cofty. How about the science of moving sub-atomic particles in solids? Science has discovered this, can explain it, but cannot change or create what exists, in sub-atomic orbitals.
Plus we can't ignore fake results, from cantleave's post. Motives that are possibly trying to negate the need for a Creator.
cofty, do you believe all scientists are atheist? If not, those that believe in an intelligent creator, do you view as not credible?
Kate xx
P.S. oops newbie sorry
so let me get this straight.
Watchtower "new light" = baaaaaaaaaad
Mormon "new light = baaaaaaaaaaad
scientific "new light" = gooooooood
Yes, the above is correct, and the inability to understand the difference between scientific and religious "new light" is a hallmark of a JW.
The two forms of "new light" differ in at least three respects: 1) the necessary threshold to be called "new light", 2) the impact of "new light," and the consequences of disbelieving.
Scientific “new light” derives from using the evidence-based, replicable, scientific method (threshold), so it results (impact) in an orderly accumulation of knowledge that constantly moves forward. There is debate among theories, but scientific facts are established.
Contrastingly, JW (and other religious) “new light” derives from pure guesswork, so it has resulted in a pattern of ‘knowledge’ that resembles a dog chasing it tale, e.g., it does not move forward.
For example, consider the JW perspective of whether those from Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected.
JWs: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/resurrection.php
1870-1920=resurrected
1941-1954-not resurrected
1965-resurrected
1967=not resurrected
1974=resurrected
1988-not resurrected
1988 (Insight Book)=some resurrected
1985-2005=not resurrected
Lastly, scientists do not shun members of their families who reject their theories, nor do they assert that if you do not subscribe to their theories, you forfeit everlasting life. : )
Bohm said-
Communication require a desire for the people who are trying to communicate to understand each other.
True, and to the list I'd add 'the ability to pay attention to minor details'.
When Cofty ask if it is a fact we have 23 cromosomes then sure, you can find a way to add context to that such that the statement becomes technically false. But if we dont want to delibrately misunderstand each other what the statement mean is quite clearly roughly "with the popular definition of chromosome the median of the number of chromosome pairs observed in humans is 23" (or some such).
Cofty didn't ask about 23 chromosomes: he asked if it was a fact we had 22 (pairs of) cromosomes.
So unless you're actually a rabbit (!), the answer would be NO, as I suspect a human embryo missing a complete pair of autosomes wouldn't be viable as a fetus, and the mother would quickly abort (if it made it that far).
Bohm said-
Perhaps you could explain if you think that statement is factually true and if not, why?
SBF already answered, but here goes again, rephrased:
The acceptable answer (aka a FACT) would depend on what level of understanding is needed for the question: do you mean an answer that is proper for (and satisfies) a child? A teen in a high-school biology course? A social science major taking a general biology course to satisfy his gen ed requirements, or a biology major taking a genetics course in his core curricula? Or, perhaps a doctoral-candidate geneticist defending his thesis on Mosaicism before a panel of biology professors?
The factually-correct answer that suffices for one is not necessarily going to work for the others, where if the teen taking a test in high school biology answers "23" is correct and given full credit for the question, "How many pairs of chromosomes do humans have?", it's woefully inaccurate for someone engaged in genetic research on mosaicism, since they know the answer is not so simple; they'd be unable to conduct research if they approached their work with the childish understanding that the answer was all there was to know on the question. There ARE degrees of factuality and correctness, and some answers are more correct than others, driven by the needs.
Some statements are simply factually WRONG, considering the applicability of the statement's meaning and purpose. As Dr Scott points out, it is FACTUALLY-FALSE to say in 2013 that the average human contains 22 pairs of chromosomes, since the source of the error was being unable to see that the smaller chromosomes were actually separate, and advancements in microscopic capabilities has revealed that there actually are 23 pairs, not 22. That is a scientific FACT. Note the disclaimers ('average'), which allow for the many exceptions mentioned above (Down's, Kleinfelters, Turners, mosaics, chimeras, etc).
Heck, anyone who's taken a college-level exam knows you can contest the answer key, and if you make a strong case for why the question was nebulous or misleading, or you can explain the rationale you used to arrive at your incoorect conclusion (or if you're simply arrogant enough to dare to explain to the college professor why his answer key is WRONG, and YOU are right!), then you can at least get partial (if not full) credit or even get the question thrown out and declared as invalid. Outside of groups like the JWs, knowing more on a subject is NOT viewed as a BAD thing, although it does force one to think about the intended purpose of the test, and consider the context in which the question was posed to try and provide the most-useful and suitable answer. Anyone who's taken alot of tests knows to consider the perspective of who's asking the question.
Unfortunately, the variability of knowledge on an internet forum is vast, where we encounter everything from blithering eediots to freakin' genuises. It's impossible to provide one answer that cover the breadth of experience and knowledge without writing a book (!).
Comatose said-
This was a very interesting thread. Now we are reduced to arguing over the abstract. This is so very silly. Can't we keep it normal?
Thanks for reinforcing the point that details that are quite basic and concrete (such as the definition of the terms used in science) are another's abstractions, LOL!
SBF and Cofty have long-been butting heads over differing understandings of the word 'fact', when it's clear that SBF is using it more consistently with the scientific definition, whereas Cofty is paradoxically relying on the more-common layperson's (non-scientific) definition. They could've resolved the disagreement themselves, if only each recognized what the source of the misunderstanding was.
Which reminds me of other common errors made by non-scientists when talking about science:
Most generally over-estimate the importance of "facts" to science, while also under-estimating the importance of "theories".
As pointed out in this thread, facts CAN and DO change, so they're not protected status and/or above questioning. Similarly, lay people abuse the word 'theory', using it colloquially as if it means what scientists would refer to as a 'hypothesis' (eg lay-people will say, "Well, that's just a theory...." as if a pejorative).
Adam
Eden said-
Thank you Adamah for explaining that in a way that someone like me can understand.
You're welcome.
Yup, the randomization process in the DNA gene pool (and the genome of the members) of a species occurs constantly, mostly due to stray cosmic and background radiation, or as byproducts of meiosis/mitosis (cell division), or from environmental factors (eg mutagens are chemicals which are KNOWN to cause mutations), etc. Some researchers believe that a deleterious side-effect or cost of such random mutations is cancer, which are harmful and deleterious changes to the DNA.
Hence the 'cost' of the same mutations which drive the process of evolution is cancer, which itself is acted upon by natural selection (eg those susceptible to certain forms of childhood cancer are thus unable to pass on their genes to progeny, since they never reach reproductive age to have children). Mutations ARE the source of randomness in the evolution process which most creations find so distasteful to accept.
But again, mutations are simply creating grist for the mill for natural selection to act upon; that's the part of evolution that is far from "random", but doesn't require an intelligence or consciousness to make the selection: the environment itself enforces which are adapted to it (and sometimes justice isn't fair, eg humans have driven otherwise well-adapted species into extinction, simply by hunting them into extinction, eg the North American passenger pigeon). That would be an example of ignorant unnatural selection, where human activities play a role in the process (as we do in unnatural selection, eg by creating designer breeds of dogs like labridoodles, etc).
Natural selection plays a role in applying the pop quizzes, where everyday and minute is a pop quiz, and sometimes the entire class passes (eg some species are very conservative, i.e. there's little evidence of change occurring when compared to fossils) and sometimes the entire class fails (eg dinosaurs who went extinct from a selection pressure which was too great).
Something else that's commonly missed by lay-people and not-at-all obvious is that natural selection exerts almost no force on shaping the gene pool of a species after an individual passes out of the reproductive age (eg menopause) and their parenting duties are done, since for all intents and purposes, the DNA itself is what matters and already has been passed on. Hence if they lived up to the typical stereotypes of theists, the cold-hearted evolutionist atheist WOULD be arguing that the elderly should be used as Soylent Green, since they're no longer shaping evolution.
Obviously that's a bit extreme, and ignores the idea of the existence of a social contract, where older individuals can expect to retire after having spent their life in productive activities, and can provide the benefit of their experiences and help raise the next few generations. The existence of family clans also provides social cohesiveness which, if not directly related to evolution, generally plays a role in making the world a better place to be (if not taken to extremes, eg certain religions that break apart families).
Adam
Adam - to reduce my differences with SBF to semantics is to miss the point entirely.
When the meaning of words is blatantly obvious from the context only a dullard argues about definitions. You still don't get my point about "facts" - too bad.
How about the science of moving sub-atomic particles in solids? Science has discovered this, can explain it, but cannot change or create what exists, in sub-atomic orbitals. - Kate
Hi Kate, I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you mean that because there is still much to learn about particle physics there are still plenty places to hide a god-of-the-gaps?
Newton thought that because he couldn't understand why the planets revolve on the same plane that must be proof of the work of god. That gap disappeared when it was discovered how planets form. Later Paley argued that the design of living things was evidence for god. That gap disappeared when Darwin wrote "Origin of Species". Now believers look for gaps in molecular biology and particle physics. Those gaps are rapidly disappearing too.
Motives that are possibly trying to negate the need for a Creator
That is not possible because of how science works. Deliberate frauds are discovered when results are examined by other labs. Peer review is a brutal process. Frauds are soon going to lose their career. There is no conspiracy in science to discredit god. There is not such body as "science" to coordinate such a conspiracy. People who discover new things or expose errors get prizes.
do you believe all scientists are atheist? If not, those that believe in an intelligent creator, do you view as not credible?
A very small percentage of top scientists - members of National Academys for example - are believers, but there are plenty christians in science. Francis Collins who heads the Human Genome Project is very vocal about his faith. There is nothing to stop a christian doing good science as long as they leave god outside the lab.
Cofty said-
Adam - to reduce my differences with SBF to semantics is to miss the point entirely.
Pray tell, what did I miss? You think he's a waffling relativist, and he thinks you're a dogmatic absolutist thinker. Does that not surmise both of your viewpoints?
Fact is, you BOTH ARE correct, LOL
Cofty said-
When the meaning of words is blatantly obvious from the context only a dullard argues about definitions. You still don't get my point about "facts" - too bad.
You miss the point that the sciences are built off commonly-accepted standards, which all participants agree to use (including the meanings of basic scientific terms). If you've ever seen "The Atheist Experience", you'd know that rationalists like Matt Dilahunty make sure to clarify newly-introduced terms in a debate, just to be sure time is not wasted talking past each other.
However, you aren't a scientist, so you don't have to respect the scientific definitions, but if you claim to speak as an advocate for increasing public awareness of the importance of science (as Dr Scott does, AS HER CAREER), you should at least strive to do it in an intellectually-honest manner.
Because whether you accept it as fact or not, the CONSENSUS opinion truly IS what matters in science; if you cannot accept that, then in your words: too bad.
Adam
Motives that are possibly trying to negate the need for a Creator.
Not at all, this has nothing to do with negating a creator just experimental error and academic dishonesty.
Cofty said-
Motives that are possibly trying to negate the need for a Creator
That is not possible because of how science works. Deliberate frauds are discovered when results are examined by other labs. Peer review is a brutal process. Frauds are soon going to lose their career. There is no conspiracy in science to discredit god. There is not such body as "science" to coordinate such a conspiracy. People who discover new things or expose errors get prizes.
Ohhh, unfortunately that's not the whole story, Cofty:
While science is more realistic than religion (which promises heaven and delivers nothing), it ain't no Valhalla.
Adam
