|
|
Re[2]: Evolution as fact
Deus Ex Machina (X8H1@MUSIC.STLAWU.EDU)
Thu, 7 Mar 1996 03:39:32 EST
In reply to the reply:
First of all evolution as I said before is fact. Natural selection as I
and others have said is the theory. Evolution is the basis for modern
biology which includes physical anthro. There is NO competing alternate
model/whatever to explain the diversity on this planet that has any vali
,solid, hard scientific evidence. Since in science and the real world
we are always dealing in probabilities the SLIGHT possibilty that
evolution didn't happen CANNOT be used as an argument against it because
that would discount everything that we consider fact. DO NOT let this
confuse you it is an inherent possibility that the sun may not rise
tomorrow, but that DOES NOT mean we would regard this possibilty as
a reasonable one, that would be UNSCIENTIFIC. The fact that something
MIGHT be unfactual DOES NOT support any other idea it simply means that
this particular idea/concept is that percent unlikely. To state that
anything is possible because we don't know everything is a fallacy
called an argumentum ad ignoratum.
To state that we would have gotten nowhere had people accepted
certain principle and premises as fact in their own time is illogical
and wrong. In the example of the discovery that the earth was round
the ancient Greeks used GEOMETRY that was accepeted as a legitimate
science then and now. Scientist do not reinvent the wheel every time
they disagree with something.
It is faulty to think that "we need to be there" to prove something
in science as this type of thinking betrays an ignorance of general
scientific practice.
Comparing science to religion is also a BIG mistake. For one thing
religion tends to be Dogmatic and stagnant in its beliefs. Science
changes alot. When a new model/hypothesis is proposed and it has
legitimate data etc that shows or suggests that this new idea
is better than the old one science will change accordingly. Science has
a unique self-correcting device called a dialectic. When one chooses
not to accept a given idea the threat of Holy war is not imminent
as it has been in religion. I nor I think does any scientist worship
scientific method as GOD. Science and religion are VERY different
the similarities you think you see are superficial. Similar to the
similarities that many would see in A. robustus and A. boisei if
one where untrained in phys. anthro.
As to whether or not probabilty in the real world is a "great argument
for questioning science" I would have to say again that this statement
is made in ignorance as to the workings of science.
As for my sig file itsin reference to the censorship on the net not
science.
As to whether I am "trapped in science" this would I suppose refer to
the idea of close-mindedness that I may be suffering from. I would
argue that close-mindedness works both ways. Everyone is inherently
close-minded and believes themselves to be right and everyone else
wrong. All I can say is that if someone proposes an alternate idea
to something I believe and know to be true I will TRY to judge as
fairly as HUMANLY possible. It may be pointed out that our
current level of scientific advancement in the world is due to
scientists believing themselves to be absolutley right and never giving
up the quest for knowledge, truth, or fact.
Matthew D. Joanis '98
x8h1@music.stlawu.edu
St. Lawrence University
Anthro major
>At 02:45 AM 03/06/96 EST, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
>
>>It occurs to me that if one wishes to practice science "properly" one
>>must as a necessary course accept certain principles and premises as
>>fact. In light of this when you look at science it is seen that
>>all learning always comes in the theoretical. However it should be noted
>>that when the word "theory" or even "hypothesis" is used in the
>>scientific arena both terms take on very different meanings than their
>>colloquial usuage. This I think is basic knowledge for most students of
>>science.
>
>If Darwin followed that premise and excepted the scientific views of his
>time, we wouln't be having this debate ... not to mention; Einstein,
>Hawkins, Leakey, etc. There has been a prevaling fact in every generation
>... if someone didn't guestion it ... look into it thoroughly ... well the
>Earth would still be flat, at the center of the universe, etc. Personally,
>I do not doubt evolution at all ... but the theories or other assumptions
>based on evidence that cannot be proved without actually being there, I
>believe is open to question ... at worse the standing theory/opinion will
>stand the test of debate or something closer to the truth or fact will be
>found. To except science unequivically is no different than a religious
>individuals unwaving faith in God/Goddess/Whatever.
>
>>As to the "factualness" of anything it was demonstrated by AJ Ayer that
>>there isn't anything in the "real world" that is 100% certain, factual,
>>or provable. Therefore it can be said there isn't anything which is
>>actual or factual just probable. Given this then it can be said that
>>evolution is highly probable. If when we classify things as fact
>>we do it based on probability of occurence then evolution must be
>>included and I think that it is clear that we base the qualification
>>of fact on probability. I find it interesting to note that modern
>>biology is based on the idea of evolution yet we still can't agree on
>>whether evolution happened or not. If we use the same argument against
>>other fields of science that we use against evolution can science
>>continue to exist? I doubt it. Evolution is fact plain and simple.
>>What is at question here as some others on the List serve have said
>>is not whether evolution is fact rather is natural selection fact?
>>To make the analogy to volcanology we know volcanoes erupt, we are only
>>uncertain as to how they erupt.
>
>A great argument for questioning science ... the more we know the closer we
>can come to that ever allusive 100% fact.
>
>>"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
>>will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson
>
>Good quote ... though it goes against your premise. Your comment to support
>science unquestionably is giving up your freedom to explore/learn to see
>what may or not be there for the security of a set way, a path determined.
>
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
-- Thomas Jefferson
|