Evolution (Redefined)
 

Thought provoking video explaining what a scientific theory is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUppY9Va3AE

Its interesting to note that Sir Isaac Newton who beleived in intelligent design actually did formulate a theory: The Theory of Gravity in his work the Principia. But then Newton was more of a natural philosopher than a "scientist" of today. He was trying to understand how the mind of god worked out through creation. The great majority of the latter part of his life was devoted to the study of biblical prophecies since he believed the bible to be the inerrant word of God.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Don't even bother watching- standard word-twisting nonsense via use of multiple definitions out of context mixed in with the usual "it's only a theory" attack. D-

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Not speaking a bad word about Newton, he was a brilliant man. But indeed, his theistical views did interfere hard with some of his theories with some unfortunate sideeffects.

As a funny note it can be mentioned that his theistical view on the solar system was beaten to a pulp by a rather famous german philosopher.

It is important to understand that the academics of those days were often very broadly educated. Backgrounds from several disciplines were not uncommon and neither was theological background (actually it was very common as theologists had for many centuries been the academics of their time).

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Are you referring to Kant tame_deuces? Kant was a theist just like Newton. Its interesting they both arrive at the same conclusion just by different routes. In many senses Kant probably built on Newton. His work evolved from the study and correction of Newton. Only time will tell if he invalidated everything of Newton's, but human time as measured by an individual life is finite.

An excerpt on Kant from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/:

Kant was born in Königsberg; he spent his life there; he died there. At the age of forty-six, Kant received an appointment as a professor of logic and metaphysics at his alma mater the University of Königsberg. His famous claim: "Though our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises out of experience." A philosophical classic is his work Critique of Pure Reason wherein he asserts that our perceptual apparatus is capable of ordering sense-impressions into intelligible unities, which, while in themselves cannot be proven, we are led to conclude through "pure reason," that intelligible unities, such as God, freedom, and immortality, do exist; and that the formation of such intelligible unities are practical necessities for one's life. An admirer of Rousseau, Kant's work gave rise to the Idealist school (Fichte, Hegel and Schopenhauer).

Kant was of the view that while the existence of God could not be proven, we ought to come to a belief in God's existence by way of "logical understanding." Kant concluded that this world was not sufficient in itself, that an external power, which he identified with God, was a regulative necessity; and that God was a requisite for morality, it gives meaning to our life here on earth. The existence of God was, for Kant, but one of three postulates of morality, the other two being freedom of the will, and immortality of the soul. These moral axioms, unprovable as they are, existed for Kant simply because they were the sine qua non of the moral life. (So much for the notion that morality is something that arises from our own character, from our own intelligence: - I would argue that the acceptance of an external, all powerful being reduces us to mere servants; and, thus, there is no need for morals, there is but only the need to obey.)

Edit and Correction: excerpt is actually from http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Bi...sophy/Kant.htm

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Kant stated what everybody sensible on this forum states. That it is not possible to know if there is a god or an afterlife because of the limitations of reason, and neither can you know if there is not a god.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

A brief synopsis for those interested. It starts with some definitions:
Theory "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"
Fact "the quality of being actual: a question of fact hinges on evidence"
Evidence "an outward sign;INDICATION b:something that furnishes proof;TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter"

Then says:
By a secular dictionary's own words evidence must be "an outward sign." Evidence must also be "something that furnishes proof." Evidence must come from a "testimony" or be an "indication". Definition #2 says that evidence must be "one who bears witness".

Next:
In order to have a theory, we must have facts. In order to have facts we must have evidence. That evidence must be proven to be true. Proving happens by testing, observing and demonstrating.

And finally:
Since evolution cannot be tested, demonstrated, repeated or observed; it cannot be a fact.

There's also a christian rock track featuring lines like "I used to trust in natural selection, my survival was all I could see. My evolving to perfection started when God rescued me."

I cant believe anyone is actually presenting this as an argument. Presumably it's a "rally the troops and all have a jolly good laugh at the atheists" kind of thing.

Can I ask you Splendour, (as I cant understand why you would post this, since it just makes creationists look bad) did you find this persuasive? Do you think evolution isnt even a theory? Or did you glean something else from it?

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Seriosusly, someone well versed in scientific philosophy and good language skills should write a simple science, logic, hypothesis, theory and falsification FAQ that should be stickied in this forum.

These semantic misunderstanding/misdirection arguments are getting old, and I'm even new here!

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

metaphysical
2 entries found.

metaphysicalMetaphysical



Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-ˈfi-zi-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to metaphysics
2 a: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b: supernatural
3: highly abstract or abstruse; also : theoretical
4often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery
— meta·phys·i·cal·ly \-k(ə-)lē\ adverb


Read the rest of the biography above. Without Kant's grasp of the transcendent science as we know it today wouldn't have progressed as much as it has. He moved away from matter to forces. Was there a leap in his reasoning?

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

There is no doubt that what I said is what you can deduse from Kant's works. That he had some claims about God for practical purposes is besides the point.

And the dictionary is the reason why we are even having this thread, because some people use the word 'theory' as used in science like the word 'theory' like used in everyday speech.

And they are not the same.

To use an analogy it would be like me defining the word 'god' to mean 'ordinary human' and then every time you say something about god and miracles I jump up and shout 'but god is just a god!'

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

But was there a leap made by Kant? How did he appply a metaphysical concept. The bio uses the word that he bridged. To go back and bridge didn't he have to leap first?

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

It's important to note that one of the main reasons Kant is so influental is because what he writes is in many ways so controversial. And I'm no Kant expert either, I don't really have patience for 800 page books of heavy philosophy.

I do know what he attempted to do was to pick a fight with pure empiricism and advocate some use of rationalism. Its tough to write in a few lines, but I did touch the subject in another thread recently. The fact that we humans are interpreters of the world around us makes us experience things in context of our own bodies.

Like a computer would experience light if we fitted it with a sensor and some software as bursts of electricity through its chipsets and number-crunching in the software, we too are unable to perceive the 'real world' beyond what we interpret.

And some of the practical implications of this is that there are limitations to what we can reason about, for example we can't reason about god.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Splendour is the Elmer Gantry of 2+2.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Well the funny thing is that it seems everyone makes leaps not just people of faith. The idea of a hypothesis one can argue is a leap that one then tries to prove.

Here's an interesting article illustrating that:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/A...periments.html

just a quote from it: After data has been collected and analyzed, the scientist formulates an hypothesis. It may be a short leap of logic, or an intuitive leap of faith

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

A hypothesis is a prediction, not something that is taken as true...

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Well you don't see the superficial barrier that scientists have set up between themselves and others on the question of faith? Scientists haven't necessarily examined the evidence any better than non-scientists. Its just that they've looked at a narrower specimen on which to base their conclusions from. They have the microscope set on high power to see the smallest thing from one viewpoint. If they widen the lens they'll see evolution is versus an intelligent creator. If they widen it further they'll see that history tells a different story, even wider psychology tells a different story, even wider philosophy tells a different one, sociology tells another one and so on and so on. Each discipline is looking at a different type of evidence sometimes different types of evidence at different times in history. Who decides which evidence is best?

What if the evolutionists are right? What if we are evolving towards God. What if God gave himself to us through a series of stages. He put us thru the Old Testament as a basic training then the New Testament as the new and improved version, but while we have the new and improved version we never accept the Son which is the key to the new and improved version. Instead we are looking over at Buddhism, Hinduism and saying why aren't they correct? Maybe pre-Old Testament they were correct. Maybe since God will judge on deeds in the absence of his word they are in a better state than non-Christians in a Christian country? Maybe they were essentially more peaceful religions so God went west first knowing full well that eventually the Western evangelists would go east like they are doing today. Is that the big picture? Don't you have to get the big picture before you break everything down into little ones?

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

It just hit me today. How did Newton make his most famous discovery. From a "falling apple" (where in literature do we see falls and apples figuring prominently?).

Newton had to make quite a leap to compare the moon to an apple. Maybe there was just a little divine providence at work in that occurence. What if Newton hadn't been in his apple orchard that day?

An amazing man Newton. Here's just a few of the things he did:
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Do you ever have a point or do you just randomly speculate about obviously unknowable things?

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Sorry if you find my questions irritating Tom. I must have a little too much of the Socratic in my nature. I also like to make leaps. Apparently that's something that all kinds of people do.

Imagine if Helen Keller couldn't make a leap in her deaf, dumb and blind mind. She would never have been able to communicate with her teacher.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
It just hit me today. How did Newton make his most famous discovery. From a "falling apple" (where in literature do we see falls and apples figuring prominently?).



[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Both stories have apples? It must be God.

This is what actually serves as compelling evidence to Christians these days?

Hmmm. Snow white fell to sleep after biting a poisoned Apple -- certainly this must be a message from God. What secret message is God telling us through the 7 dwarves? Zoinks.

Then there's the movie American Pie -- Didn't that movie feature a man having sex with an apple pie? Certainly this would be a significant message from God. Should the Bible be amended to include a DVD of the movie American Pie?

[ QUOTE ]
Newton had to make quite a leap to compare the moon to an apple. Maybe there was just a little divine providence at work in that occurence. What if Newton hadn't been in his apple orchard that day?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Only through God could a man speculate that gravity would act on the moon like it acts on an apple. More sound reason from Splendour. She may start a revolution is Christian Apologetics.

Of course many doubt the whole apple hitting his head thing is actually just a fairy tale but that's another point. I assume Splendour takes it all on Faith. Cause it was written somewhere....

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Dr Lienhard a professor of mechanical engineering explains more about the credibility of Newton's apple story.

Sorry you can't enjoy parallels Kurto. I never said it proved anything. I found the parallel entertaining, though it did raise the question of divine providence in my mind.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi606.htm

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dr Lienhard a professor of mechanical engineering explains more about the credibility of Newton's apple story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aaah. Then it no doubt accurate. (though some versions have him getting hit on the head... some he just witnesses an apple.)

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry you can't enjoy parallels Kurto.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do enjoy parrallels. Didn't you see the parallels I posted? Snow White, American Pie and the Bible all had some interesting parallels.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said it proved anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seemed to hint at these parallels as being indicative of the divine.

[ QUOTE ]
...though it did raise the question of divine providence in my mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would appear that everything, no matter how insignificant, reinforces want you want to believe. More indicative of your ability to reinforce you beliefs despite the evidence then anything else.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Newton wasted much of his professional life on alchemy.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists haven't necessarily examined the evidence any better than non-scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]
They've certainly examined it more, and from a more educated position. I'm talking about the natural world of course. How could you possibly argue otherwise?

If Newton lived today instead of when he did, I very much doubt he would have had the same theistical views. For the same reasons, I don't believe he would have gotten quite so caught up in alchemy.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well the funny thing is that it seems everyone makes leaps not just people of faith. The idea of a hypothesis one can argue is a leap that one then tries to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is uncommon. Usually you attempt to disprove it, and if you fail to do so you assume the hypothesis to be valid to model your case. Finding proof of a hypothesis is mostly something you would do in a pre-research state (for example by case studies) to try and guess if it is worth your time to test the hypothesis.

Going about finding 'proof' of stuff is largely uninteresting when you come to that stage, finding proof of stuff is easy - just look at the video you linked, its only interest is to show you stuff that verifies it, falsification isn't given a single thought.

Critical thinking, falsification, proper _testing_ of your theory - testing NOT proving, do you see the difference? Not seeing if it can be true, but checking if it can be untrue.

Someone with some veteran status here should really, really write that scientific method FAQ, this is getting silly.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Trivial.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if you find my questions irritating Tom. I must have a little too much of the Socratic in my nature. I also like to make leaps. Apparently that's something that all kinds of people do.

Imagine if Helen Keller couldn't make a leap in her deaf, dumb and blind mind. She would never have been able to communicate with her teacher.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was another German philosopher who exposed the psychology of Kantian "leaps." Let's see, who was that? Nietzsche perhaps?

"Weariness that wants to reach the ultimate with one leap, with one fatal leap, a poor ignorant weariness that does not want to want any more: this created all gods and afterworlds." (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans Kaufmann, emphasis mine.)

Braver souls eschew such shallow consolations.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Was Nietzsche concerned with science when he said this?

quote from the bio cited above:

quote from Paul Johnson's book, The Birth of the Modern:

"The 18th century had failed to solve the problem of how heat, light, magnetism and electrical power fitted into the laws of motion and attraction Isaac Newton had set out in his Principia (1687). But Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and still more in his Metaphisical Foundations of Natural Science (1786), had produced an inspirational insight. He was concerned not so much with science as with God. Was there a duality, of spirit and matter? Newton had been concerned only with matter -- and with the advance of science, this pointed to a materialistic world and led to atheism. Kant wanted to bridge the gulf between spirit and matter and harmonize the physical and moral laws. As he saw it, space and time were purely mental intuitions which made our grasp of external reality possible. The substance of thing-in-itself, Ding an sich, was hidden from human reason -- reality was perceived, rather than led an independent existence. We perceive reality only through the forces, of attraction and repulsion, which work in space. Hence Kant dismissed the dualism of spirit and matter, replacing it by forces. The universe consisted, then, not of matter but of forces. Electricity, magnetism or any other observable effects were governed by laws of attraction and repulsion within a unified theory of forces, all of which were convertible into one another.
"It is doubtful if the physical scientists could have proceeded as fast as they did in the early 19th century without this essentially metaphysical intuition.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was Nietzsche concerned with science when he said this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, obviously not? He was talking about the reification of subjective morality into "God's Law."

Sure, Kant's repudiation of dualism was one of the great accomplishments of the 19th century, but his "leap" of asserting the categorical imperative was something quite different. You seem to be confusing the two.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Actually I think you're the one who jumped tracks here Subfallen. tame_deuces and I were talking about the metaphysical leap that Kant made that allowed him to switch from the Newtonian idea of materialism to the Kantian idea of forces in science not theology/philosophy.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I think you're the one who jumped tracks here Subfallen. tame_deuces and I were talking about the metaphysical leap that Kant made that allowed him to switch from the Newtonian idea of materialism to the Kantian idea of forces in science not theology/philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repudiating dualism was not a metaphysical "leap" of the sort you're claiming; it was more like the repudiation of such a leap!

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

but this happened before he repudiated dualism:

Kant wanted to bridge the gulf between spirit and matter and harmonize the physical and moral laws. As he saw it, space and time were purely mental intuitions which made our grasp of external reality possible. The substance of thing-in-itself, Ding an sich, was hidden from human reason -- reality was perceived, rather than led an independent existence. We perceive reality only through the forces, of attraction and repulsion, which work in space

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Newton wasted much of his professional life on alchemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

And from many reports, he was completely insane.

Wrong!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Boring, stupid, and useless video explaining what the dictionary definition of "theory" is while remaining ignorant of what the term "scientific theory" means: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU



[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Alchemy may not have been a waste of time for Newton.

Came across this on looking a little at Newton and his alchemy studies:

"Sir Isaac Newton, the famous seventeenth-century mathematician and scientist, though not generally known as an alchemist, practiced the art with a passion. Though he wrote over a million words on the subject, after his death in 1727, the Royal Society deemed that they were "not fit to be printed." The papers were rediscovered in the middle of the twentieth century and most scholars now concede that Newton was first an foremost an alchemist. It is also becoming obvious that the inspiration for Newton's laws of light and theory of gravity came from his alchemical work."

Newton seems to have been a sort of Renaissance man like DaVinci. No one ever seems to knock DaVinci for his ability to be a multitalented genius so why knock Newton?
Was Newton insane, I doubt it. Eccentric probably and hard nosed enough to pursue things in spite of criticism. Where would we be if he hadn't had that characteristic?

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

Splendour -

When I read your posts, I feel schizophrenic because you copy+paste so often without crediting the source. But I rather like it. In fact, it's why I read all your posts...so I can share in that "certain refinement of pleasure" that accompanies dizzying incoherence.

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Edit - Marry me?

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Splendour -

When I read your posts, I feel schizophrenic because you copy+paste so often without crediting the source. But I rather like it. In fact, it's why I read all your posts...so I can share in that "certain refinement of pleasure" that accompanies dizzying incoherence.

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Edit - Marry me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the introduction to the alchemy site that Splendor took the quote -

[ QUOTE ]
this website is dedicated to helping individuals understand and apply the principles of alchemy. The most basic tenet of alchemy is that there are two primary ways of knowing reality, and learning to work with both of them is how we must begin the journey of transformation.

[/ QUOTE ]

luckyme

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Splendour -

When I read your posts, I feel schizophrenic because you copy+paste so often without crediting the source. But I rather like it. In fact, it's why I read all your posts...so I can share in that "certain refinement of pleasure" that accompanies dizzying incoherence.

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Edit - Marry me?

[/ QUOTE ]

and when you challenge her about something that she posts, she usually responds by posting something completely unrelated. I see the schizophrenia.... just not sure I'd want to marry into it. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

HINT: Disproving evolution does not prove the existence of god.

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the introduction to the alchemy site that Splendor took the quote -

[ QUOTE ]

this website is dedicated to helping individuals understand and apply the principles of alchemy. The most basic tenet of alchemy is that there are two primary ways of knowing reality, and learning to work with both of them is how we must begin the journey of transformation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome. Who said that leaving sources uncited hurts your credibility? Somebody who didn't cite alchemy manifestos---that's who!

Re: Evolution (Redefined)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Alchemy may not have been a waste of time for Newton.

Came across this on looking a little at Newton and his alchemy studies:

"Sir Isaac Newton, the famous seventeenth-century mathematician and scientist, though not generally known as an alchemist, practiced the art with a passion. Though he wrote over a million words on the subject, after his death in 1727, the Royal Society deemed that they were "not fit to be printed." The papers were rediscovered in the middle of the twentieth century and most scholars now concede that Newton was first an foremost an alchemist. It is also becoming obvious that the inspiration for Newton's laws of light and theory of gravity came from his alchemical work."

Newton seems to have been a sort of Renaissance man like DaVinci. No one ever seems to knock DaVinci for his ability to be a multitalented genius so why knock Newton?
Was Newton insane, I doubt it. Eccentric probably and hard nosed enough to pursue things in spite of criticism. Where would we be if he hadn't had that characteristic?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a credibility issue. The point I'm making is that saying Newton believed in God probably hurts your case more than helps it.