For the alternative theorists:

Facts and theories are two different things.

Ok.

Facts are the observations, theories try to explain what is observed.

If facts are observations, then how could it be possible for an observation report to ever be false or mistaken?

Evolution is a fact that can only be denied by those totally ignorant of the current knowledge of those observed facts, or by someone with mental problems or other impediments to accepting reality.

Theists often say things like that about belief in God. God's existence is supposed to be obvious to everyone who isn't a damnable "denier", individuals who are too attached to their own lives of sin.

Given the thesis that facts are observations, and the assertion that "evolution" (whatever that means) is a fact, then it would seem that evolution should be something that people directly observe. That might be plausible if we define 'evolution' as change over time. Obviously people observe the world as constantly changing. But it's far less plausible to say that people directly observe biological speciation by natural selection. That's pretty clearly an explanatory model.

So, to summarize, facts are undeniable by rational actors

I think that you are on very shaky ground there, philosophically speaking.

Once again, if facts are observations, and if facts are undeniable by rational actors, then how can scientific observation reports, reports of experimental results or whatever they are, ever be mistaken? You seem to be arguing that a particular class of scientific statements must be treated as infallible and inerrant.

Bottom line: I don't believe that facts are observations or observation reports. Facts are real existing states of affairs. An observation report is true if it corresponds to the facts and it is false if it doesn't. Experimentalists sometimes make mistakes and what they report doesn't always turn out to be true.

I don't believe that evolution, at least evolution in the interesting biological sense, is directly observed. It's inferred on the basis of evidence.

Evolution may indeed be a fact, but only if it is truly the case that real-life biology behaves in the way that evolutionary theory says it does.

Personally, I'm quite confident that our ideas of biological evolution are correct as to the big picture. I'm less confident that we know all the small technical details or that we can accurately describe the evolutionary history of all species at the present time.
 
Using the word and concept of faith in relation to accepting what science has found is just showing ignorance of what science is. We do not have faith in scientific theories, we accept them as valid(provisionally)in direct relation to how well they explain the known facts. If facts or understanding comes along which better explain all the facts we drop the first theory and accept the better one(as with Einstein replacing Newton). People cannot do that with articles of faith, they are immune to facts that falsify their faith, actively promote their faith DESPITE the facts and put their fingers in their ears when new facts or contradictory theories are found. Example" Wellwisher and his extensive history of posts full of non-sense. That's what faith gets you when applied to the scientific pursuits where faith does not apply.

Grumpy:cool:
 
These are not beliefs. A belief can be based on nothing more than unreasoned faith, which in fact is the case for virtually all religious beliefs.

Beliefs are mental states, representational in character, in which propositions are held to be either true (or false).

Knowledge is a subset of belief, consisting of those beliefs that are in fact true (or false) and where suitable justification exists for holding the belief.

The traditional way of saying that is the formula -- 'knowledge is justified true belief'.
 
Yazata

If facts are observations, then how could it be possible for an observation report to ever be false or mistaken?

Observers are human, they make mistakes and, occasionally, lie. That is what the whole scientific method in about, filtering out error or fraud from what we think we know. It is unlikely that all of a scientist's peers will make the same mistake or perpetrate the same fraud. If an experiment or observation is not repeatable in completely independent work of others it is not accepted as valid.

Given the thesis that facts are observations, and the assertion that "evolution" (whatever that means) is a fact, then it would seem that evolution should be something that people directly observe.

Did you not read the direct evidence(in macro and micro)of the parallel evolution in the Flatwing Cricket of Hawaii? That was a direct observation of evolution in about 35 years.

I don't believe that evolution, at least evolution in the interesting biological sense, is directly observed.

Then you are just ignorant of the fact that it is observed every day, in the lab and in Nature. You obviously are relying on the faith you have that what you are saying is true, and are immune from facts that are counter to your faith.

Evolution may indeed be a fact, but only if it is truly the case that real-life biology behaves in the way that evolutionary theory says it does.

No, evolution is a fact, period. The theory that explains the facts of evolution can be completely falsified and discarded but the fact that evolution has occurred would be unchanged. As Galileo said "It moves!", the facts remain whether we understand them or not. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid air waiting on us to work out the differences between Newton and Einstein. They fall, that's just an observed fact. Facts and theories are two separate things, until you get that straight you will never understand science.

Grumpy:cool:
 
The world is full of laymen who find science simply too difficult to understand. Rather than admit it, they insist that it's wrong.

Sciforums seems to be populated almost entirely by laypeople too, with similar difficulties in understanding highly technical subjects. And it appears that a subset of the laypeople on this board are insisting upon belief in "science" (it would probably be more accurate to call it 'scientism') be accepted simply on the basis of faith. What orthodox science says is "fact", it's inerrant or at least 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Yes, I know that people talk a good game about 'evidence' and 'reasoning' and 'peer review'. Of course few if any of the people who throw that kind of language around are actually familiar with the evidence, have performed the reasoning, or are themselves among the peers. It's more a matter of trust, of confidence ... of faith.

Frankly, I'm not sure what else Sciforums can be. I still don't understand what a layperson's science discussion board is supposed to look like or what kind of discussions it's supposed to host.

If 90+% of the people here lack the educational background to discuss highly technical scientific issues, what can they say about them? The alternatives seem to be a diffuse and sometimes crankish skepticism on one hand, or a faith-based acceptance on the other.

In a way, that's what this thread seems to be about. It's kind of an exhortation for Sciforums lay readership to have more faith.

But it isn't just Sciforums. There's a very real and very important problem underlying all this:

What should laypeople's attitude be towards science, what can it be, in an age when science has become so technical, so institutionalized and so esoteric that it's virtually impenetrable to people who haven't spent the better part of ten years studying it in universities?

On the street, the scientific amateurism of the 18th century when families dabbled in experiments after dinner, has given way to a world in which scientists are increasingly sealed off from a general public that's less and less interested. Scientists are in danger of becoming a new priesthood in white coats, whose miracles are more effective than those of the older priests in clerical collars true, but whose pronouncements are equally an occasion for faith.

I don't think that historical tendency is healthy at all, but I don't really know what can be done about it.
 
@ - Yazata

...in reference to your Post #765...

Grok'd!!!

The truths of your Post #765, may very well be misunderstood, or not understood at all, by a large number of SciForums Members.
 
Using the word and concept of faith in relation to accepting what science has found is just showing ignorance of what science is.

Completely missing the point of a statement "is just showing" one is not the sharpest knife in the box, oh curmudgeon of lucidity ... not a problem though--unless one thinks higher of oneself than one ought. Lack of discernment and self deception born of pride set oneself up for major disappointment, pain, remorse, etc. not to mention embarrassment. My point concerned what 'science' has not found...what it is incapable of finding by definition, and, by virtue of who is doing the 'science'... That said, you do state the obvious... but I would not be so confident pontificating/pointing the finger concerning: articles of faith, being 'immune' to facts that falsify faith, actively promoting faith despite facts, and especially putting fingers in ears. It cuts both ways. Regardless, at the end of the day, one WAY is characterized by honesty and humility; the other, by arrogance and self deceit--both camps bridge their respective knowledge gaps by faith. It's all about knowledge...especially the lack thereof...and the quest that ensues to satisfy the hunger/need/curiosity inherent within. Science, as far as it can go, is not necessarily a/the problem.
 
Completely missing the point of a statement "is just showing" one is not the sharpest knife in the box, oh curmudgeon of lucidity ... not a problem though--unless one thinks higher of oneself than one ought. Lack of discernment and self deception born of pride set oneself up for major disappointment, pain, remorse, etc. not to mention embarrassment. My point concerned what 'science' has not found...what it is incapable of finding by definition, and, by virtue of who is doing the 'science'... That said, you do state the obvious... but I would not be so confident pontificating/pointing the finger concerning: articles of faith, being 'immune' to facts that falsify faith, actively promoting faith despite facts, and especially putting fingers in ears. It cuts both ways. Regardless, at the end of the day, one WAY is characterized by honesty and humility; the other, by arrogance and self deceit--both camps bridge their respective knowledge gaps by faith. It's all about knowledge...especially the lack thereof...and the quest that ensues to satisfy the hunger/need/curiosity inherent within. Science, as far as it can go, is not necessarily a/the problem.

Agreed

Science is not the problem , fragile ego's are
 
Sciforums seems to be populated almost entirely by laypeople too, with similar difficulties in understanding highly technical subjects. And it appears that a subset of the laypeople on this board are insisting upon belief in "science" (it would probably be more accurate to call it 'scientism') be accepted simply on the basis of faith. What orthodox science says is "fact", it's inerrant or at least 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
There's a clear difference though: a layperson can, in principle, become educated in science, thus removing any aspect of faith. The same cannot be said for actual religions, which are inherently faith-based. There's another problem with your logic though:
What should laypeople's attitude be towards science, what can it be, in an age when science has become so technical, so institutionalized and so esoteric that it's virtually impenetrable to people who haven't spent the better part of ten years studying it in universities?

On the street, the scientific amateurism of the 18th century when families dabbled in experiments after dinner, has given way to a world in which scientists are increasingly sealed off from a general public that's less and less interested...
That's a regrettable line of argument considering the current subject of the thread: evolution. Evolution was discovered in the 19th century, is spectacularly simple and yet is argued against by people with religious persuasion. The subject -- and I daresay most being discussed here -- are not esoteric/impenetrable.
 
Photizo

Completely missing the point of a statement "is just showing" one is not the sharpest knife in the box, oh curmudgeon of lucidity

I didn't miss his point, I am saying he does not have a point when speaking of scientific knowledge. Belief is the wrong concept, provisional acceptance is the proper concept when speaking of scientific theories, facts speak for themselves and need no belief. Faith and belief have no place in science. With faith you get things like Climate Change denial and Creationism, both of which are idiocies(scientifically). By the way, my IQ is 164 on the California scale(slightly lower on the Catell)and my Mensa card was signed by Issac Asimov in 1974. I taught Physics for over 30 years. I may not be as sharp as I was then, but I'm still much sharper than you have shown yourself to be. I've forgotten more than you will ever know.

Yazata

Sciforums seems to be populated almost entirely by laypeople too, with similar difficulties in understanding highly technical subjects. And it appears that a subset of the laypeople on this board are insisting upon belief in "science" (it would probably be more accurate to call it 'scientism') be accepted simply on the basis of faith. What orthodox science says is "fact", it's inerrant or at least 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

As a laymen, maybe you should just keep your opinions of science to yourself, because you do not understand what you are pontificating about. Only those whose world view is based on belief and faith think the way you do, you certainly have no clue about the difference between faith based logic and logic backed up by the scientific method. They are not at all similar, and only scientific logic can actually be called knowledge, as opposed to faith based OPINION. And your OPINION does not equate to our scientific knowledge, the two are not equivalent nor equally valid. You've already shown your ignorance of the current state of evidence in Evolution, your statements of disbelief that evolution is observed daily illustrates that. The rest of us are not necessarily so handicapped in understanding reality, most here are at least open to being persuaded by the evidence, those who believe are basically immune to contrary evidence, as you have demonstrated.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Last edited:
As a laymen, maybe you should just keep your opinions of science to yourself, because you do not understand what you are pontificating about. Only those whose world view is based on belief and faith think the way you do, you certainly have no clue about the difference between faith based logic and logic backed up by the scientific method. They are not at all similar, and only scientific logic can actually be called knowledge, as opposed to faith based OPINION. And your OPINION does not equate to our scientific knowledge, the two are not equivalent nor equally valid. You've already shown your ignorance of the current state of evidence in Evolution, your statements of disbelief that evolution is observed daily illustrates that. The rest of us are not necessarily so handicapped in understanding reality, most here are at least open to being persuaded by the evidence, those who believe are basically immune to contrary evidence, as you have demonstrated.

Grumpy

Scientific logic is though , constrained , by the knowledge on which it is based , which for the most part is past thinking
 
Creationists have a theory as to the Who of our surroundings rather than the what, utilizing inference based on observation. This theory requires faith by definition--as does what you hold--because the desired knowledge/certainty remains out of reach (of both creationist and others). Creationist believe--as you do--that one day this knowledge/certainty will be attained. The difference being that we believe this 'state' of knowing/certainty will be received by direct revelation from God Himself rather than attained by human effort.

What you believe is your business. But it is not science.

Again, ignoring the almighty deity concept, and either aligning with the BB or not, Life in the Universe, most certainly and logically had to have arisen from non life.
And no one has yet offered any alternative.
 
Personally, I'm quite confident that our ideas of biological evolution are correct as to the big picture. I'm less confident that we know all the small technical details or that we can accurately describe the evolutionary history of all species at the present time.


That's great.....I agree
And yet your apparent passive support for the deniers, has prevented you from answering my other question.
If life in the Universe did not arise/evolve from non life, what other explanation do you have?
 
Yes, I know that people talk a good game about 'evidence' and 'reasoning' and 'peer review'. Of course few if any of the people who throw that kind of language around are actually familiar with the evidence, have performed the reasoning, or are themselves among the peers. It's more a matter of trust, of confidence ... of faith.

If 90+% of the people here lack the educational background to discuss highly technical scientific issues, what can they say about them? The alternatives seem to be a diffuse and sometimes crankish skepticism on one hand, or a faith-based acceptance on the other.

In a way, that's what this thread seems to be about. It's kind of an exhortation for Sciforums lay readership to have more faith.


I have never been to the Arctic or Greenland, but I believe they exist because of centuries of data from centuries of giants that I have read about. That's also faith.
I have faith in the fact that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins went to the Moon.
I read about it and actually observed it through reputable sources, plus of course logic tells me that it is near Impossible to fake.
I also have faith in what science has told me....I have faith in the scientific methodology, and I have faith in the peer review system.....I have no logical reason to doubt it, but I have plenty of logical reasons to doubt the buffoonery, pseudoscientific quackery, and claims of ToE's by individuals burdened with anti establishment bias, and tall poppy syndrome. and delusions of grandeur, and their passive supporters.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck:
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html#VzdaXtQSx2e5Qkxv.99
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 
The truths of your Post #765, may very well be misunderstood, or not understood at all, by a large number of SciForums Members.



No, its understood by all, but disagreed with by most.
The member you so vehemently support, has failed to answer my insistence that Universal Life at its most basic, logically had to arise from non life.
 
Scientific logic is though , constrained , by the knowledge on which it is based , which for the most part is past thinking

Wrong. By the very definition of science and a scientific theory, science is not constrained at all.
The 20th/21st century of progress attests to that.
Science advances through the knowledge of past thinking.
 
The truths of your Post #765, may very well be misunderstood, or not understood at all, by a large number of SciForums Members.
No, its understood by all, but disagreed with by most.

So...paddoboy, do you know, for a fact, that "all" SciForums members understood "it", or... is that just your own personal hypothesis/theory???
And...paddoboy, do you also know, for a fact, that "most" SciForums members disagreed with "it", or... is that also just your own personal hypothesis/theory???

This is, after all, paddoboy, a Science Forum.


The member you so vehemently support, has failed to answer my insistence that Universal Life at its most basic, logically had to arise from non life.
???!!!
SFA/MS:UPTABS?
 
Back
Top