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: 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: Silversoul]
    #10145292 -

Thats whats needed to be a hypothesis though... merely being falsifiable is not sufficient to be a theory - that also requires evidence, etc.  Again and again this communication breakdown rears up in an evolution discussion. 

Maybe a debate where the words theory, god and others are banned then people could see real concepts instead of pigeon holed definitions; maybe at least to an extent.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
    #10145369 -

Yeah, I know.  One thing about evolution that intrigues me is that rather than happening very gradually, scientists are finding that evolution tends to make big leaps over short intervals of about 5 to 10 thousand years(a blink of an eye in geological time).  Considering the number of genes and the probability of a genetic mutation being beneficial, it seems that evolution beats the odds, and that these mutations may not be so random after all.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Silversoul]
    #10145435 -

The impression I get from my readings and pursuing is that the statistics show it is indeed within the odds.  Ill have to keep my eyes and ears open for some info on that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: DieCommie]
    #10145485 -

these are all geometries to try and explain the flow

but the flow is ceaseless and beyond digitization

we are but moments inside of higher moments

the beginning was just an effect of a higher cause and so forth

forgetting this is liberation


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10145528 -

daytripper23 said:
Is a theory of God scientific then?


There's a theory of God? All I've heard is "God exists" which is not a theory at all. It has no testable predictions and is not falsifiable.


--------------------
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]
    #10145601 -

I hope that you just consider my words in their own context, rather than previous posters.

My concern is how evolution is often considered synonymous with a causal perspective of change.

Science is a causal perspective, meaning it is conducted in terms of both cause and effect. We might observe the change between ancient cat and domestic cat, and you could say we have framed evolution between two points, satisfying both a cause and effect, and so as scientific theory. Perhaps I am not being specific, but this is the jist of it, right?

The difference, is that I would call this a scientific theory of evolution.

My point is that Evolution precedes science to the extent that it actually (non-dogmatically) signifies change. As a matter of fact, we can only actually observe effects. Evolution, might only be assumed to be just that. It is an observable change, yes, but there is no true ground for cause, even though we may recognize determinacy. It is primarily effect alone, not necessarily marginalized within the frames of Scientific understanding.

It is only through scientific (arbitrary) perspective that a cause is appropriated. Causality is the metaphysical, value based assumption that which we might impose (and my point, hopefully take responsibility for) a cause as meaningful to this observance. It is considered meaningful only because we find it somehow useful.

The basic notion of change though, which is well considered the primary characteristic of evolution; precedes perspective based causality.

So any evolutionary theory you could think of, I am sure I would agree that it is scientific; but my essential point is that this is only because you have framed it in a certain way. You created meaning, or attributed use value to it.

Evolution is not a subclause (an expressed component) of science (cause and effect), even though it may be necessary for it.

In conceptualization, it is the other way around. Science is derived from the theory of evolution, generally the notion of change. We cannot assume it is any less than infinite in scope, because we simply do not know so much. However useful this maybe to us, we cannot non-dogmatically or non-arbitrarily attribute a cause upon reality. We impose it, and again, hopefully assume responsibility.

Evolution may be a scientific theory, and in such a case it is a scientific theory of evolution. There is a big difference between this articulation and "evolution is a scientific theory".

With that said, I would probably not disagree to the "scientificity" of any specific instance anyone might mention, if only because I do not have the expertise. That's not my point. I am outlining what I consider to be the proper understanding of physic and metaphysic, as it concerns the theory of evolution. It might seem trivial or overcomplicated, but it is very important.


--------------------
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 03:57 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10145652 -

Quote:
Evolution (theory) is not a subclause (expressed component) of science (cause and effect).

In conceptualization, it is the other way around. Science is derived from the theory of evolution. We cannot assume it is any less than infinite in scope, because we simply do not know so much. We cannot non-dogmatically or non-arbitrarily attribute a cause upon reality, however useful this maybe to us. Rather we impose it.


I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


--------------------
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]
    #10145663 -

He gets a little esoteric at times.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Redstorm]
    #10145748 -

In sum, I am saying the that an unbiased notion of change (evolution) precedes any arbitrary imposition of cause, which is something that is necessary for science.

Evolution is existential; how we understand this flux is more specific.

Does evolution actually claim a cause?


--------------------
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]
    #10145833 -

The problem is, if evolution is defined as between two points, a dualistic perspective, it must assume a cause. Evolution does not though, we may simply observe effect, the singular, unbiased flux of existence. No evolution does not assume a cause. Reality just is.

I am not saying you should dig that, but just understand its necessary precedence.

Science is not simply knowledge of the world, it is purely pragmatic. By that, and in relation to evolution, we impose the scope of cause (and effect). It is perhaps better put as arbitrary, but as a human concern it is what I call imposition, as an appeal to responsibility. We need to begin taking responsibility for our science. Science for science's sake is a shallow illusion, it always flows back to human values.


--------------------
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]
    #10145892 -

>The problem is, if evolution is defined as between two points, a dualistic perspective, it must assume a cause.

Why?


--------------------
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]
    #10145961 -

Well he presumed earlier that science requires a cause, which is not true.



Science is observation.  You throw in some informed guessing in there and that's about it.  No cause needed.


The rest of his post got into some metaphysical stuff which seems a side issue.



These discussions always devolve into some "but do you really know that's reality?" which is irrelevant and not the point, but whatever.  I think that was some of his previous discussion and why its a bit off track in my opinion.


Science observes stuff and postulates ideas on teh basis which informs further experimentation.  Whether we are observing reality or something else isn't really relevant.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10145981 -

Do you agree that rationality is determinant?

That is how we make sense of, and how we define scope. They arise together. If the scope is from primitive organism A to organism B, to make scientific sense of this, we determine that A (and its environment) caused B. Through whatever string of mechanism, that is how we make sense of things. (Thats our 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: johnm214]
    #10146016 -

Quote:
Well he presumed earlier that science requires a cause, which is not true.

Science is observation.  You throw in some informed guessing in there and that's about it.  No cause needed.


Define Science from American heritage dictionary (with my own notes and emphasis)


Quote:
1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.


b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.  (a merely ostensible definition of reality "in itself")


c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

5. Science Christian Science. (no comment)



Observation is observation, science is more than that.



--------------------
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]
    #10146056 -

What's your point?


--------------------
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]
    #10146107 -

Overall?

That an unbiased notion of change, precedes the causal. Specifically referring to what evolution is; it is a philosophy that precedes science. It is the notion of change, which precedes the contextualized, or concretely scoped perspective of change that is between two points.

I realize that issue tends to rise in terms of some silly theories and much friction is created this way but evolution simply has nothing to do with cause. It is simply a flux.

So it might clearly demonstrate that the world was not created 5000 years ago, but it does not favor any other context or scope.


--------------------
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]
    #10146109 -

Basically there's a fundamental problem in these discussions.  I see science used in two ways:

1.  The process of science whereby you guess things based on your evidence and try to observe whether or not these guesses are true.

2.  The results of said process that are supported and tested by many relevant observations and only those well supported presumptions as are neccesary.


The second is basically what I think people should be refering to when they say "science says....." as otherwise it makes little sense- the statement could mean anything.  (like if that were to refer to science in the first sense it could include my theory that squid cause the seasons, which is a valid hypothesis but wouldn't be considered to be what 'science says' since it isn't a well tested theory.  In that case it would make little sense to criticize science cuz I decided one day to amass evidence that squid cause the season- those kinds of guesses aren't supposed to be accurate)


The problem, however; is that the criticisms of science in these forums and in the public sphere seem to revolve around the guessing part of number 1 and use the inherent wrong guesses to argue that 2. is bullshit, which isn't true.


That's the problem in a nutshell that is repeated in this forum and others ad infinitum.



In any case, dictionaries probably aren't the best source to inform on these matters.  I think my two definitions in the above are the source of much of the mischief in these forums, and i think they're pretty accurate.  I don't see how science requires cause any more than anything in the universe, i.e. while the processes require cause to manifest the scientific observation doesn't have to look for such or explain it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: johnm214]
    #10146133 -

>That an unbiased notion of change, precedes the causal. Specifically referring to what evolution is; it is a philosophy that precedes science. It is the notion of change

But "evolution" is not the same as "change". Evolution is not a philosophy. It's an explanation for an observation.


--------------------
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: johnm214]
    #10146155 -

johnm214 said:
Basically there's a fundamental problem in these discussions.  I see science used in two ways:

1.  The process of science whereby you guess things based on your evidence and try to observe whether or not these guesses are true.

2.  The results of said process that are supported and tested by many relevant observations and only those well supported presumptions as are neccesary.


The second is basically what I think people should be refering to when they say "science says....." as otherwise it makes little sense- the statement could mean anything.  (like if that were to refer to science in the first sense it could include my theory that squid cause the seasons, which is a valid hypothesis but wouldn't be considered to be what 'science says' since it isn't a well tested theory.  In that case it would make little sense to criticize science cuz I decided one day to amass evidence that squid cause the season- those kinds of guesses aren't supposed to be accurate)


The problem, however; is that the criticisms of science in these forums and in the public sphere seem to revolve around the guessing part of number 1 and use the inherent wrong guesses to argue that 2. is bullshit, which isn't true.


That's the problem in a nutshell that is repeated in this forum and others ad infinitum.



In any case, dictionaries probably aren't the best source to inform on these matters.  I think my two definitions in the above are the source of much of the mischief in these forums, and i think they're pretty accurate.  I don't see how science requires cause any more than anything in the universe, i.e. while the processes require cause to manifest the scientific observation doesn't have to look for such or explain it.


A scientific explanation outside of the causality? Just provide an example then.

Also, I didn't say that number two is bullshit, I said that it is metaphysical. By that I mean to represent any notion of human reason/rationality, so it is no "worse" in this sense than any other knowledge. Yet there are certainly many describable downfalls, primarily stemming from the fact that it is merely an ideal reflection of reality. Yea, you might appropriately denigrate a metaphysic as bullshit, but another way of putting it is acknowledging the frailty of perspective. Also, just because you don't concern yourself with metaphysics, doesn't mean that it is drivel. If you study philosophy it is very important. It is acknowledging the frailty of perspective in terms of the world.

Finally, concerning dictionaries, I would normally agree. If you will look, I was not initially relying on dictionaries at all, and I think the rhetoric in my first few posts should be self explanatory. But if you simply disagree with me, what am I supposed to do say "no it isn't" to your "yes it is"? I explained what I meant in previous posts, so if you simply disagree, I have to appeal to a higher consensual authority.


--------------------
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 02:17 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10146170 -

>and I think the rhetoric in my first few posts should be self explanatory

It isn't.


--------------------
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
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Shop: 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 3,591 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 19,658 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Post deleted by Anno Anonymous 1,266 12 03/18/04 03:30 PM
by silversoul7
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 4,748 64 01/30/03 06:45 AM
by Teragon
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,380 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Evolution Of Humans
( 1 2 all )		 superfine 2,155 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 2,655 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
14,527 topic views. 0 members, 1,595 guests and 38 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 0.033 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 18 queries.