A Strange Circularity (Stanley Fish Article)

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

bagnasty wrote:

missionary wrote:

That's Enlightenment propaganda. Some medieval writers made this claim not scripture. If you have scripture that says the world is flat then produce it. And of course this wouldn't apply to figures of speech or metaphorical illustrations.

The point remains that you could fill a library with well established scientific facts that are not mentioned in the bible; information like the pysics used to make your computer work, for example. You may be able to argue that the bible is not wrong about the shape of the earth, but the fact remains that the bible says nothing even remotely like, "The earth is spherical in shape and travels in an elliptical obrit around the sun with seven other planets." In fact, im not aware of there being a single line in the bible that could not have been writen by someone living in the first century. Remarkable, since we are to believe that the bible was inspired by an all knowing being.

The bible isn't a scientific textbook. It's a historical record of a Semitic people group and the Creator's interaction with them. What YOU expect to be in scripture isn't found in scripture. However, even if it were? There would still be non-believer websites explaining how the bible stole the idea from Egypt, or Assyria, or elsewhere. Where the scripture mentions something of science, it's accurate in it's primitive description just as it's historically accurate in names, places, kings, rulers, geography, etc..

bagnasty wrote:

missionary wrote:

Really? Has science declared "clairvoyance" on CAUSE? If they KNEW when, how, and why plates shift, lava flows, tornadoes spawn, tsunamis, cyclones, and every other event we would know weeks in advance. However, all they have is computer models and math equations to make theoretical predictions that are hardly accurate. Weather is the best they've got. We have satellites and computers watching the atmosphere 24/7 and the best we can hope for is they spot something developing and try to predict what it might do. What they CANNOT account for is the origin and cause behind each event. Thus, they have unpredictable theories.

Nonsense. First, tornados, tsunamis, and cyclones are exapmles of complex, dynamic phenonomena, difficult to predict very far in advance, even if the processes involved are well understood. This is not proof that science has no predictive power. For less irregular occurances science has astounding and unquestionable success. Astromomers can tell you the exact date and time of the next eclipse, for example. Something like that should not be possible under your characterisation of science.

Now, as for scientists not accounting for the causes of events: the whole point of the scientific methods is to figure out just what is causing what. If scientists were not very successful at doing this, if they just have unpredictable theories and theories with no predictive abilities, then how do you account for the the remarkable success of science that even you, grudgingly, concede? This is something you need to do, for if you persist in typing out anti-science nonsense on your computer and putting it out over the internet for people hundreds of miles away to read almost instantly, it makes you look foolish.

I'm a communications engineer, so I understand telephony, computer language, and interstate/intrastate communications. That is quite different from trying to compare applied technology to our study of the atmosphere, our solar system, or distant galaxies. It's also quite different from earth sciences or biology.

What I do know from my profession is that math fails when applied. For this reason, theoretical mathematical models of communication facilities that work on paper must be constantly reengineered to account for variations, unknown variables, and unforeseen anomalies in terrain, power, energy leakage, stresses and tolerances, etc. What this tells me is that where mathematical equations and models are used to explain phenomena that can't be applied or tested, then that math and model is certain to fail when unknown variables and anomalies interfere. This would be true for much of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. Predicting an eclipse is not the same as declaring what matter exists at the core of a white dwarf star.

Likewise, you agree with the difficulty in predicting weather events. Weather represents a phenomena that is "right here with us" in real time that we have measuring devices pointed at 24/7 and are STILL unable to accurately discern EXACTLY what it's going to do. If this is true, and it is, how much MORE SO is the difficulty in predicting or explaining phenomena and events that are taking place millions of light years away or millions of years in the past with ANY ACCURACY whatsoever?

If we can't accurately predict weather in real time where current measurements are applied, what makes you think we can accurately conclude phenomena and events where our measurements can't even be tested or applied to be accurate?? Your "belief" in hypothetical mathematical models has you convinced that you hold answers when in fact you hold nothing but untested math .

bagnasty wrote:

Quote:

Do you have stats of birth mortality rates from 5000 years ago?

We have birth mortality rates from one hundred years ago, right. I, admittadly, dont have them at hand, but i am quite sure that if you were to look, you will find infant mortality to be much lower now and for life expectancy to much higher now. I'm also quite sure that if you were to compare infant mortality and life expectancy between more technologically advanced societies and less advanced societies you will find a similiar and very clear improvement in those societies more technologically advanced. This seems pretty obvious, but if you have evidence to the contrary, lets hear it.

I'm not saying it isn't a reasonable assumption. The difference is Sliced_bread stated it as fact which is EXACTLY what I'm talking about here. That any scientific hypothesis stating "could be, possibly; seems to indicate" suddenly jumps into IT's A FACT OF SCIENCE. which is bunk. The scientific method is a convenient crutch that the faithful lean on as PROOF as long as it's convenient. As soon as scientists start offering opinion and speculation, the faithful jump it like it's an observable repeatable fact when it is not. This shifting criteria of evidence is brought in and out of discussions as warranted. In one breath you guys will hold gravity and relativity out on display and in the next breath hold up some completely controversial pseudo-science abstract as a possible answer.

bagnasty wrote:

missionary wrote:

It's interesting that you equate advancing technology with the advancement of human society. Convenience has nothing to do with behavior; electricity doesn't improve hate; air travel doesn't repress crime. Your shiny new laptop won't prevent a rape or a war.

Clearly technology is morally neutral. The fruits of scientific research, like science itself, are tools in our hands, that can be used for good or ill. It's up to us to find ways of using them responsibly. That said, i do think that improving transportation and communication allows people to see that people in different countries are very much like them. This, i think, helps errode the xenophobia and strident nationalism that generally leads to hostility.

Also, technology helps people meet there material needs better, thus diminishing the violence that so easily errupts in areas of extreme scarcity. Technology is not a panecea but it can help foster the better parts of out natures, in my opinion.

There's no doubt technology makes my life more comfortable, entertaining, and convenient. Travel and communication is a good thing. However, in every culture, society, and village there is an in group/out group mentality. It exists within families and it exists with national borders, ethnic groups, or political ideology. Mankind differs in opinion and joins themselves with like-minded individuals to form groups that exclude other individuals and groups. That's just human nature. No amount of science or technology is bound to change that.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 381

Quote:

The average reader will walk away from any of those articles believing the subject matter is scientific fact. When they remember the article, they will not remember "may; could be; possibly" etc. all they will remember is, IT IS .

You can't possibly blame the scientific community for the failings of the common layperson.

Quote:

fulfilling self-serving desires, greed, and assertion of control and has nothing to do with need or want.

Uhhh what?

Quote:

While I can appreciate what may seem so f-ing obvious, oftentimes it's not as f-ing obvious as it seems. This is especially the case with those who claim to rely entirely upon empirical evidence that is observable and repeatable. For those persons, NOTHING is f-ing obvious and EVERYTHING must be observed repeatedly or else you might as well throw out the scientific method and begin claiming that "EVERYTHING is SO F*ING OBVIOUS".

Could you tell me how the fact that infant mortality is down from 5,000 years ago ISN'T completely obvious? I never said that everything is obvious, but there are places where I draw the line. This would be one of those places.

I could go look up infant mortality rates, but I really don't feel like it. I have way more interesting things to care about.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

The average reader will walk away from any of those articles believing the subject matter is scientific fact. When they remember the article, they will not remember "may; could be; possibly" etc. all they will remember is, IT IS .

You can't possibly blame the scientific community for the failings of the common layperson.

Yeah I can. They feed the media and make no attempts to correct anything. For example...If I say Joshua led an assault on Jericho you cry, "prove it!!" but if some researcher says, "the core of the sun is hydrogen" you'll claim it as fact without core samples of the sun. The scientific method is a convenient pole to lean on until something is unobservable, unrepeatable, or untestable and then scientific opinion and speculation based on mathematical computer models and simulations will suffice as an answer.

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

fulfilling self-serving desires, greed, and assertion of control and has nothing to do with need or want.

Uhhh what?

Crime isn't a result of impoverished 3rd world people who are hungrey as you claimed. It's motivation is self-serving desires not lack of basic necessities.

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

While I can appreciate what may seem so f-ing obvious, oftentimes it's not as f-ing obvious as it seems. This is especially the case with those who claim to rely entirely upon empirical evidence that is observable and repeatable. For those persons, NOTHING is f-ing obvious and EVERYTHING must be observed repeatedly or else you might as well throw out the scientific method and begin claiming that "EVERYTHING is SO F*ING OBVIOUS".

Could you tell me how the fact that infant mortality is down from 5,000 years ago ISN'T completely obvious? I never said that everything is obvious, but there are places where I draw the line. This would be one of those places.

I could go look up infant mortality rates, but I really don't feel like it. I have way more interesting things to care about.

Firstly, there aren't any statistics from 5000 years ago so one could only speculate. For all you know? Not one single baby EVER died at birth unless you have evidence otherwise. The point is, without any evidence whatsoever a person cannot just nakedly assert a fact of knowledge as though it's some known information. This is precisely the problem I have with speculative scientific opinion and conjecture. It an assumptive guess and not based on science at all.

Just Arrived Joined: Mar 14, 2007 Posts: 2

Missionary wrote:

Firstly, there aren't any statistics from 5000 years ago so one could only speculate. For all you know? Not one single baby EVER died at birth unless you have evidence otherwise. The point is, without any evidence whatsoever a person cannot just nakedly assert a fact of knowledge as though it's some known information. This is precisely the problem I have with speculative scientific opinion and conjecture. It an assumptive guess and not based on science at all.

If you assume that scientists are BAD people out to deceive everyone about the ATHEIST religion of evolution, I can see why you'd doubt that they can tell what is in the centre of the sun, but the fact remains that scientists are doing the best they can, and any dishonesty would just lead to another scientists pointing out any misinformation in their research, and they would do that by doing their own research.

Science doesn't 'nakedly' assert anything, and just because you cant fathom how they came by the information they have, doesn't mean you have any reason to doubt, and if you DO think you have reason to doubt, do your own research and make a name for yourself, publish a paper that others read and can follow your research. The greatest acknowledgement of a scientists research is when another scientists takes what he has done and uses it in his own research (standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak)

Intelligent design proponents will admit that they DO NOT have a scientific theory of ID other than 'goddunit', that is not to say they aren't trying, and if they are trying, you can't assume they wont produce the evidence to support their claims, but at the moment, nothing challenges the theory of evolution enough to make most serious scientists doubt it, and considering it is the theory that has been researched for the past 150 years and it is still considered sound, I'd be very surprised if the ID movement produced something other that claims of evolution as a conspiracy to distract people's attention from God.

Reading your quote, I'd say the fact that Intelligent design STARTS with 'we know the truth, now lets prove it', that THEY are in fact the ones that are promoting 'speculative scientific opinion', especially considering that the typical conservative Christian will believe THEM (and remember what I said about NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF ID) long before they believe someone that has spent their life researching the great unknown, and providing answers that best fit with the evidence.

Noel.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Nnoel wrote:

Science doesn't 'nakedly' assert anything, and just because you cant fathom how they came by the information they have, doesn't mean you have any reason to doubt,

You're in a trance...spellbound as it were.

Here's the latest and greatest news. A new planet found using a technique called gravitational microlensing. After you read up on that, enjoy the science fiction of media headlines. Make sure to read all three.

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/microlensing.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-06-02-mini-planet-discovery_N.htm

"The astrophysicists suggest the tiny planet supports a thick atmosphere, which along with possible interior heating by radioactive decay, could make the surface as balmy as that of Earth. (And theory suggests the surface may be completely covered by a deep ocean.)"

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14038-newfound-planet-has-just-three-times-earths-mass.html

"The planet is referred to as MOA-2007-BLG-192L and is around 3000 light years from Earth. Planet formation theory suggests it is likely made mostly of rock and ice."

"If someone can find planets like these, we're certainly hoping to be able to find out about them – and the smaller the host star's mass the better for us," John Mather of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Nobel Laureate and senior project scientist for the JWST, told New Scientist. A smaller star makes the transit of a planet easier to see, giving a better chance to measure the chemical composition of the atmosphere – a key part of finding the signs of life.

Bennett's team made their discovery through a phenomenon called gravitational microlensing. This relies on analysis of the way the host star bends light coming from another, more distant star. The presence of a planet can further distort the light.

Performing such observations is notoriously difficult, but made possible in this instance thanks to the sensitivity of Microlensing Observations in Astrophysics (MOA) II telescope in New Zealand."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/06/02/scispace102.xml

"However, the planet is likely to maintain a massive atmosphere that would allow warmer temperatures at lower altitudes. It is even possible that interior heating by radioactive decays would be sufficient to make the surface as warm as the Earth, but theory suggests that the surface may be completely covered by a very deep ocean."

***********
Well let's see. We have light bending around "something" they have identified as a planet which makes it able to be seen. From that very difficult and precise work of gravitational microlensing we now have "theories" (their word, not mine) involving rock and ice, deep oceans, interior heating by radioactive decays, an atmosphere, and the possibility of freakin alien life.

A Theory. Just like gravity.

HAHAHA. You're right science doesn't make naked assertions. They're BUCK-naked. haha

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:02 am

Missionary, you seem quite intent on descrediting science. The problem is that the objections you raise are not ones scientifically literate people are unaware of: yes, scientists are human beings- limited, falible, sometimes bias-proned human beings; yes, popular science journals often senastionalize stories; yes, the average person is not as scientifically literate as they ought to be; yes, complex phenomena often confound our attempts to make predictions very far in advance; yes, often our models fail to account for everything in the real world; yes, often our math often does not conform to reality as accuratly as we would expect; yes, science revises and sometimes reverses itself as new information turns up.

Does all this mean that science has gained us nothing; that scienitsist are brainwashing themselves into thinking they posses absolute truth; that those who accept the findings of science always believe what they hear with dogmatic conviction; that those who grant some level of credence to the findings of science are worthy of derision? Of course not. Again, when you get sick or injured you go the hospital. Why do you do that? Because, while there are things to be wary of, as i have said, scienctists are not groping in the dark.

The points that you have raised are important and they should remind us to be cautious, but they do not succed in showing that scienctific inquiry is a fools errand. Empirical enquiry, guided by reason, are simply the best methods we are aware of for getting us closer to the truth and deriving the most reliable useful imformation. Because some people do this poorly, because some people are overzelous about this, does not refute that fact, it just means we should be careful, that we should understand that science is a human enterprise, and that we should hold beliefs about the findings of science tenatively.

missionary wrote:

HAHAHA. You're right science doesn't make naked assertions. They're BUCK-naked. haha

Didnt you mean to say that some scientists make naked assertions? It is true that some people go too far. That does not mean that all of science is making naked assertions. Once again, if you believe this, if you really believe that scientists are making buck-naked assertions, HAHA!, you have to account for the overwhelming success of science. Is it just a vastly improbable fluke? Do scientists just get really, really lucky? Is that what you would have us believe?

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

My issue is with the same fundamentalist extremists that many people are concerned about and how that extremism can be based not only on religion but also on ideology, politics, bloodlines, or science.

You have people like Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens fueling a fanatical hatred for religion and religious people as posing a danger or threat to human survival while a Marilyn Manson culture is hearing some esoteric call to Helter Skelter. The religion is science and the doctrine is hate. These stoned kids with no comprehension of science or math "believe" whatever they hear from the secular humanist machine.

This has nothing to do with the discipline or academic study of science but rather the hijacked implications of faith-based belief in science to provide the ammo to kill any notion of a Creator-God. You can deny that if you wish, but that is precisely the hope that is floating in the background of every non-believers mind.

The thing is? Many have jumped ship and merely use the scientific method as a buoy to swim back and cling to as they move further and further away from facts to embrace abstract ideas as truths. Some have completely abandoned the buoy altogether and just fantasize science fiction and lap up the sensationalized stories as facts.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:08 am

missionary wrote:

This has nothing to do with the discipline or academic study of science but rather the hijacked implications of faith-based belief in science to provide the ammo to kill any notion of a Creator-God. You can deny that if you wish, but that is precisely the hope that is floating in the background of every non-believers mind.

Really? You know precisely what is going on in the background of every non-believers mind?

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

bagnasty wrote:

missionary wrote:

This has nothing to do with the discipline or academic study of science but rather the hijacked implications of faith-based belief in science to provide the ammo to kill any notion of a Creator-God. You can deny that if you wish, but that is precisely the hope that is floating in the background of every non-believers mind.

Really? You know precisely what is going on in the background of every non-believers mind?

The answer to life's origin is inherently implanted on everyone's mind. Everyone asks themselves at some point, who am I? Where did I come from? What's my purpose? What will become of me? Or some similar line of questioning.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 381

Quote:

Crime isn't a result of impoverished 3rd world people who are hungrey as you claimed. It's motivation is self-serving desires not lack of basic necessities.

Uuugh, looks like I am going to have to point this out. You said that: "fulfilling self-serving desires, greed, and assertion of control and has nothing to do with need or want." I said that most crime is based on need or WANT. Desires and greed are both forms of WANT. Third world countries have this particular problem. Look at Mexico and all those African nations like Sudan and Sierra Leone.

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:39 pm

missionary wrote:

The answer to life's origin is inherently implanted on everyone's mind. Everyone asks themselves at some point, who am I? Where did I come from? What's my purpose? What will become of me? Or some similar line of questioning.

The answer to life's origin is inherently implanted on everyone's mind? What is the answer? How do you know that? How do you know it is implanted on everyones mind?

If its bad for those advocates of science to make naked assertions, why is it not bad for you to do so as well?

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 381

You would also have to ask, 'what is god's purpose? Why does anything exist, including god? How does god constitute a high purpose if there is no point to the being itself?'

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

Crime isn't a result of impoverished 3rd world people who are hungrey as you claimed. It's motivation is self-serving desires not lack of basic necessities.

Uuugh, looks like I am going to have to point this out. You said that: "fulfilling self-serving desires, greed, and assertion of control and has nothing to do with need or want." I said that most crime is based on need or WANT. Desires and greed are both forms of WANT. Third world countries have this particular problem. Look at Mexico and all those African nations like Sudan and Sierra Leone.

I get what you're saying Cygnus. My point is that there really isn't a place where it doesn't exist. The motivation for most crimes is not going to stem from needing food, formula, or diapers. I'm pretty sure domestic violence, alcohol, drugs, and gangs top the list.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

bagnasty wrote:

missionary wrote:

The answer to life's origin is inherently implanted on everyone's mind. Everyone asks themselves at some point, who am I? Where did I come from? What's my purpose? What will become of me? Or some similar line of questioning.

The answer to life's origin is inherently implanted on everyone's mind? What is the answer? How do you know that? How do you know it is implanted on everyones mind?

If its bad for those advocates of science to make naked assertions, why is it not bad for you to do so as well?

Romans 1:19 (NKJV)
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them , for God has shown it to them .

We all ask internal questions. We're all looking for answers. We all want the truth. That's the way we're wired.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

You would also have to ask, 'what is god's purpose? Why does anything exist, including god? How does god constitute a high purpose if there is no point to the being itself?'

We know in part that His purpose is to create and love. We know He has plans for good in eternity. What those plans consist of are unknown.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore