Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10140718 -

zouden said:
>From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth.  Evolution, in that sense, is no different.  Please notice I said a striking similarity.

How on earth is the theory of evolution 'no different' from an origin myth?


Look at it this way--which I think was Ice's point--if evolution bore no resemblance in that sense there would be no argument.  As it stands two ideas about our origins collide because they have that in common.

In many respects, they are light years apart with many differences. Yet, in that instance, they are exactly alike.  Evolution is man's attempt to tell us how we got here.  Why is that so shocking?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10140723 -

zouden said:
>From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth.  Evolution, in that sense, is no different.  Please notice I said a striking similarity.

How on earth is the theory of evolution 'no different' from an origin myth?


an origin myth does not have material proof backing it up.


--------------------

Sid and Mr. Madhat <part one> A story by Cubie P. Cubensis
<> I WANNA SMOKE THIS BOWL <> <A comic by Cubie P. Cubensis>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10141257 -

Mr. Mushrooms said:
zouden said:
>From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth.  Evolution, in that sense, is no different.  Please notice I said a striking similarity.

How on earth is the theory of evolution 'no different' from an origin myth?


Look at it this way--which I think was Ice's point--if evolution bore no resemblance in that sense there would be no argument.  As it stands two ideas about our origins collide because they have that in common.

In many respects, they are light years apart with many differences. Yet, in that instance, they are exactly alike.  Evolution is man's attempt to tell us how we got here.  Why is that so shocking?


So you mean that evolution is similar to origin myths in a way that is irrelevant to the theory itself? That's a completely useless point and I don't know why you brought it up. It's like saying that sexual intercourse is an origin myth because it also tries to explain how we got here.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10141546 -

Quote:
It's like saying that sexual intercourse is an origin myth because it also tries to explain how we got here.


:lol: good one

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10141565 -

On second look, I can't really see anywhere in this thread where its premise is supported with actual cogent arguments.  Of course, I think we need to get clear on what we mean by "evolution."  If we're talking about common descent, I would say there's overwhelming evidence for that.  I do think that some NeoDarwinists like Dawkins tend to presuppose ideas like biological determinism, but the premise that species evolve from one another seems to be very well supported.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #10142313 -

Silversoul said:
On second look, I can't really see anywhere in this thread where its premise is supported with actual cogent arguments



Yep, said so in my first post and nobody's come up with anything yet.


It isn't scientific theory because..... I say so.  :confused:


Qubit said:
Quote:
It's like saying that sexual intercourse is an origin myth because it also tries to explain how we got here.


:lol: good one




Right, which is why I asked what he meant by religion when calling it a religious myth.  It seemed like he was ignoring the common definition of the word, and making a statement that is hard to understand.


Science is based on observation, religion is based on faith and dogma.  Not hard to tell the two apart.
Mr. Mushrooms said:
johnm214 said:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.


Is that a scientific statement of fact, or mere philosophical conjecture?




You do this quite a bit.


Do what?


Quote:
Your whole objection to some portions of what is commonly called science is that people make conclusions that are not fully supportable by the existing data.  Ok, but this isn't supposed to be infallibale as science is sometimes taken to be.  It is purposely a hypothesis rather than a statement of scientific dogma.


Hypotheses are one thing, laws are another and theories still another.  I have many objections but I don't understand your point.


Quote:
And the statement you question, what of it?  You can of course not ay something is fact, like that.  Of course we don't have knowledge of what the future is going to be, we can only base it on the past, and so obviously we can make presumptions that are wrong.


My statement?  Which one?


Quote:
Quote:
We don't care nearly as much about the origins of the Pygmy Goat as we do ourselves.  This is because, at the root of it, studies in origins bear striking similarity to religion.  That's because they are religion.


What is religion in this context?

I don't understand how you are using this word to say that studies toward the origin of a species or life is religion.

How is mixing shit in  a vat and seeing what comes about religion?  How is digging  up a fossil religion?


From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth.  Evolution, in that sense, is no different.  Please notice I said a striking similarity.

Quote:
Again, your observations all seem premised upon some shock that when people take scientific data and make hypothesises that these hypothesises can be wrong.  No kidding.  This is supposed to be the case, and has nothing to do with the validity of of conclusions drawn with relativly certain presumptions or relativly direct measurements.


A worse mischaracterization of my thought could scarcely be found.



1.  You do what i said:  criticize science as foolish on the basis of some objection to some thought that was a hypothesis rather than an observation or conclusion premised upon rational presumptions.  You say "oh they said science told me serum cholesterol is caused and well correlated to dietary cholesterol but they were wrong, science sucks" when in reality the premise  is incorrect- science didn't say that, it was just a hypothesis for which no direct evidence existed.  When the observations supported changing the hypothesis it was done, but its not like anyone was arguing that it is scientifically inconceivable that cholesterol resulted from other processes than dietary consumption.

Likewise you take what someone said in time magazine and purport that to be representative of some scientific dogma, and yet you never establish the premise as true before criticzing it.  Just cuz a scientist or a paper says soemthing doesn't mean its some 'scientifically proven truth'.  Much of the process is just guessing and supporting or refuting the guess on the basis of further evidence.


2 
Quote:
A worse mischaracterization of my thought could scarcely be found


I'm not saying its what you are thinking, I'm saying it what you are doing, as evidenced by your arguments.  If you care to refute it go ahead.

Quote:
From the Greeks and before many religions have an origin myth.  Evolution, in that sense, is no different.  Please notice I said a striking similarity.



Like zouden said, this seems a dishonest comparison, not useful at all.


In any case, greek origin myths do not yield testable predictions if they rely on supernatural creation at some point in the past.  Science is different.  You can test the theory of evolution in some ways, and in that sense it is a scientific theory.  I suspect these origin myths have no predictions that may be tested and no evidence that directly supports them.  If they have these things, then yeah it is, perhaps, though of as a scientific thought, but so what?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
    #10142735 -

This thread seems to be the quintessential example of how P&S members distrust and dislike science and scientific conclusions.  Here they are comparing science to religion so that the usual religion bashing can be easily redirected to science.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
    #10142752 -

Not me! I like the scientific method.:thumbup: It's nothing like religion IMO. People mistake the practitioners faults for the thing itself. Not really "mistake", they know well what they are doing, "use" is a better term.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
    #10142821 -

Quote:
Not really "mistake", they know well what they are doing, "use" is a better term.


You are calling certain posters deceptive? :mad:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10142905 -

Yes of course. Actually all us humans deceive ourselves IMO. Just some more than others.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Icelander]
    #10143913 -

who's doing the deceiving then? is the deceiver deceived too? if so... is it really deceiving? :smile:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
    #10144151 -

Qubit said:
This thread seems to be the quintessential example of how P&S members distrust and dislike science and scientific conclusions. 


For very good reason Qubit

I am not going to look through this whole thread, just thought I would throw some ideas out.

First of all, the reason evolution is an often debated subject, is not merely because the crazy Christians, but concerns humanism in general.

Second, I wonder if anybody has defined science in this thread?

Lets say science is the study of causality. There are some interesting consequences to this:

If science is the study of causality itself, we are essentially framing reality within the margins of cause and effect.

Yet evolution does not attribute any cause; it is in unbiased, a series of effects.

If there is no "real" cause, as the creationists would argue, how is it sensible? This is more scientific in a certain sense, in that cause (creation) and effect are explicitly acknowledged. (please do not get your panties in a bundle over this, just understand my semantics)

Evolutionists would rather arbitrarily impose scope (to the extent that they find use value in it), as between one point of development and another. But it is important to point out that the initial idea is not yet "framed" as science. The theory of evolution extends "beyond" any defining cause, or rather, it does not choose to assume of one. You might say that it is infinite in scope, while science is finite (within margins). Simplified way of looking at this difference, is that evolution is a step back from science, in that it is merely considered a series of effects, without addressing cause.

While the assumption of cause is crucial to science, it is not to phenomenology in general. The theory of evolution is what I would consider existential (my own interest stemming from Nietzsche). This is the highest integrity in my opinion, but with that, any evolutionist cannot shirk the responsibility of any imposed scope and perspective in his pragmatic application, nor should he deny the vagueness of his initial theory: Change is ungraspable, unknowable "in itself".

So if you would indulge these definitions:

Science may be considered the (framed) study of both cause and effect, whereupon it obtains its use value. If it is agreed that science is a finite concern of both cause and effect, it is granted that this (the ideal of science) is appropriately considered a perspective, and naturally a perspective that is arbitrarily imposed upon the actual reality of a situation. Thus, "science" as we refer to it in this abstract sense, really is a metaphysic. So it must be tied to the world: Science is the meta-properties (cause and effect) of human use value and pragmatics. In consideration of both physic and metaphysic; "realistically", it is technology.


In coming to consensus, the typical reactionary appeals of those like Richard Dawkins or Creationists, are both schools that I consider  evangelical. The particular "Integrity" in my mind, is breached in both; that one should not be assumptive of a creation point (as the Creationists choose to), but neither should one at once imply this point and deny culpability of perspective (as the evangelical evolutionists seem to). Its really the same thing.

Of course this is not to suggest that all creationists or evolutionists are evangelical, although I am not sure why I need to mention this.

Evolution, existentialism, absurdity, are closely related in my mind, particularly because they precede science. A common understanding to each of these philosophies, is that change cannot ever be Truly (unarbitrarily) grasped.

I agree with evolution as a philosophical notion of change, and to any extent that I find this useful or graspable, I consider it a science. Change (or "effect") is existential, Cause and effect is metaphysical (sensible).



--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Edited by daytripper23 (04/11/09 03:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10145099 -

Right, so no one in this thread thinks that evolution is not a scientific theory, apart from the OP, who's been rather hesitant to back up that assertion. It's taken 7 pages of posts to get to this point :confused:


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10145111 -

Its not the destination, but the journey. 

:failboat:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10145169 -

What is the scientific theory of evolution?

You don't have to go into specifics, but how exactly would you frame it as a subclause of science?


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10145208 -

It's in the name - "theory of evolution". Theories are, by definition, scientific.

The OP's assertion is that evolution is not scientific, and not a theory. I fail to see how this is the case.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
    #10145246 -

OP might be interested in reading Paul Feyerabend.

...

In the grand scheme of things the theory of evolution isn't necessarily a better explanation of the origin of our species than any other. But in the field of science, in a sense of how the theory of evolution frames biological understandings, it is a better explanation because it can be used in science by scientists and as such is a scientific theory.

IF scientists some how worked the adam and eve story into some sort of useful explanation of how biological organisms change over time, i.e. an explanation of how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, then I can't see any reason why the creation story couldn't be a scientific theory too. But the creation story isn't useful to scientific method/understanding and isn't generally purported as science, so it's not.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10145248 -

Is a theory of God scientific then?


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10145251 -

The theory is that observed change in traits as well as observed diversity of life can be explained with mutations in reproduction combined with a selection mechanism over time.

Im not sure about as a 'subclause' but, its scientific because it offers testable hypothesis, observable predictive abilities, and could presumably be falsified.  Its elevated to the status of theory because it has been tested, predictions have been confirmed and has yet to be falsified with a consensus within the scientific community.

Seems simple to me.  :gethigh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10145267 -

daytripper23 said:
Is a theory of God scientific then?


If it's falsifiable.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* No Evolution threads allowed.
( 1 2 all )		 sir tripsalot 3,572 29 10/04/02 11:50 PM
by Anonymous
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 World Spirit 19,547 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Post deleted by Anno Anonymous 1,263 12 03/18/04 03:30 PM
by silversoul7
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 4,712 64 01/30/03 06:45 AM
by Teragon
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,319 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Evolution Of Humans
( 1 2 all )		 superfine 2,132 23 04/21/03 05:11 PM
by pattern
* What is a "theory"? Anonymous 681 5 01/15/04 07:22 AM
by anarchyhollow
* Creationism / Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 angryshroom 2,625 23 11/11/03 06:29 AM
by StrangeDays

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
14,379 topic views. 0 members, 181 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 17 queries.