Mr. Mushrooms said:

zouden said:

Telescopes, microscopes, fossils: all just tools.

---

No, that's a categorical error.  In the case of the telescope we observe a star in the midst of a supernova expansion; in the case of the microscope we observe a cell under mitosis.  Where do we directly observe speciation?  Nowhere.

---

Quote:

zouden said:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

This is really central to the thread.  I can only surmise that most of us are more familiar with the arguments being offered than the idea that science is culturally driven.  Since that is the case, its conclusions, especially in the case of historical events, are suspect.

---

Oh come on. Does your argument really come down to little more than an ad hominem? You can do better than that.

---

1)  It isn't my argument.  I am merely reporting on the book.
2)  What ad hominem?  I don't understand what you are saying.

---

redgreenvines said:

Mr. mushrooms,
that is a profoundly egoistical and ungodly response,
I am ashamed for you
I will crush small rocks tonight in my caves for your issue
may you be accidentally relieved of ignorance without pain or embarrassment.

---

And my love, respect and honor for your positions grows and grows.  They are simply a delight.

We're lucky to have your posts with us. 

redgreenvines said:

a halo is waiting for you most assuredly
but you are a very bad boy in my books because of this thread
you know nothing substantive about either science or evolution
but I don't think it is entirely your fault.
did you ever read Stephen King?

---

zouden said:

But the light from the star has taken millions of years to reach us. We've never observed a supernova live (no one could, they'd be killed by it). But to the astronomer, watching a supernova occur over several days through his telescope, he could happily say that he's directly observed it. To an evolutionary biologist, finding a fossil that clearly shows an evolutionary relationship between one species and another is as much a direct observation as that of the astronomer. It happened millions of years ago, but then, so did the supernova.

---

Quote:

zouden said:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

1)  It isn't my argument.  I am merely reporting on the book.
2)  What ad hominem?  I don't understand what you are saying.

---

1) Yes, sorry if I've conflated your argument with that of the book, but you seem to be in complete agreeance with it so it feels like your argument is one and the same.
2) "Science is culturally driven, so its conclusions are suspect" - an ad hominem. You can't disagree with conclusions just by attacking the motivations behind the science. The fact that science is often culturally driven has no bearings on the results whatsoever.

---

Well, yes, there are parts of the book that I agree with.  In that sense, those could be called mine.  But, as there are parts of the book I don't particularly agree with, it (the argument) isn't mine.

Your number two isn't really an ad hominem for science isn't a man.  Ad hominem literally means "to the man."  You're correct though.  Just because a conclusion is reached by cultural motivations it certainly doesn't mean the conclusions are automatically incorrect--but, given the nature of man (and remembering science is a creation of man), Kuhn's paradigm idea states that, for a time, a bias may reside over a group of facts leading to an erroneous conclusion.  How?  Well, for one thing, ignoring anomalies.  I certainly agree with Kuhn there.  I've seen it too many times.

Many times scientists want to place science, and themselves, above reproach.

Science cannot be incorrect. 

And to that, I say, nonsense.

These paradigms control much more of science than many of us would be comfortable with, zouden.  Remember we were discussing how difficult it was for Darwin to get his theory accepted?  Now if scientists, and science, were as objective as Popper would have us believe, and Darwin's theory had the weight it had/has it should have been immediately embraced by the whole scientific community.  Yet, it wasn't.  Why?  Because scientists--the practitioners of science--are not nearly as objective as they would like to think they are.  This is especially true of theories not subject to immediate testing.  The more extrapolation a theory needs for evidence, the more subject to bias it is.

redgreenvines said:

your studies should show that people offer partial truths
what I am bringing to the fore is that they are very inclined to share their fantasies and nightmares.
both dean and stephen are very bad boys

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Your number two isn't really an ad hominem for science isn't a man.  Ad hominem literally means "to the man." 

---

Quote:

You're correct though.  Just because a conclusion is reached by cultural motivations it certainly doesn't mean the conclusions are automatically incorrect--but, given the nature of man (and remembering science is a creation of man), Kuhn's paradigm idea states that, for a time, a bias may reside over a group of facts leading to an erroneous conclusion.

---

Quote:

These paradigms control much more of science than many of us would be comfortable with, zouden.  Remember we were discussing how difficult it was for Darwin to get his theory accepted?  Now if scientists, and science, were as objective as Popper would have us believe, and Darwin's theory had the weight it had/has it should have been immediately embraced by the whole scientific community.  Yet, it wasn't.  Why?  Because scientists--the practitioners of science--are not nearly as objective as they would like to think they are.  This is especially true of theories not subject to immediate testing.  The more extrapolation a theory needs for evidence, the more subject to bias it is.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

zouden said:

But the light from the star has taken millions of years to reach us. We've never observed a supernova live (no one could, they'd be killed by it). But to the astronomer, watching a supernova occur over several days through his telescope, he could happily say that he's directly observed it. To an evolutionary biologist, finding a fossil that clearly shows an evolutionary relationship between one species and another is as much a direct observation as that of the astronomer. It happened millions of years ago, but then, so did the supernova.

---

There is a large difference between experiencing a direct percept, i.e. light from a supernova, and looking at old fossils.  I admit that is a very ingenious argument though.

---

Quote:

Quote:

These paradigms control much more of science than many of us would be comfortable with, zouden.  Remember we were discussing how difficult it was for Darwin to get his theory accepted?  Now if scientists, and science, were as objective as Popper would have us believe, and Darwin's theory had the weight it had/has it should have been immediately embraced by the whole scientific community.  Yet, it wasn't.  Why?  Because scientists--the practitioners of science--are not nearly as objective as they would like to think they are.  This is especially true of theories not subject to immediate testing.  The more extrapolation a theory needs for evidence, the more subject to bias it is.

---

But nobody said that science has to work fast. It doesn't matter how long it took Darwin's ideas to get accepted. Given enough time, the truth is always made clear in the end.

---

Icelander said:

  Because scientists, whose opinions comprise science, aren't always as objective as they should be.  Thus, we get faulty science.  You say temporarily.  Good.  That's the party line again.

I think you have a valid point, to a point. However this applies to us all including you and me. "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves" OK then we are both doing this here with our beliefs also, right?

But the fact that there are lots of scientists working on this makes it just a tad easier to keep on the straight and narrow toward fact wouldn't you say? Never perfect however.

My thing is that I haven't heard anything else that makes as much sense to me personally and I have done some looking around. Personally evolution doesn't thrill me or any of the things I have come to believe in the last several years. I had to fight my bias to get here kicking and screaming. I want a kinder gentler reality with a groovy loving creator force backing me all the way. But I don't seem to be able to convince myself of it due to the evidence I don't see for it and the evidence I do see for basic mindless evolution. Now why is that do you think?

---

redgreenvines said:

you can watch speciation through the records up to the present, you just can't predict evolution or watch things evolve in real time, since it is generational.
evolution becomes obvious in retrospect.

the fallacy here is that engineering is a predictive scientific application, and mr. mushrooms is showing that evolution is not a science of that type.
it is not mathematically predictive.

however, something is very wrong about the vigor with which he is defending very odd positions in peripheral issues.
we have to face it.
many scientists are crack pots and  mistakes can be made while picking lab assistants, and then one thing leads to another then this!

---