Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Absolute truth is something I don't believe we can ever have.

Scientific truth is not an artificial distinction, it's a literal distinction. Science has a definable set of conditions and limits, which allows it define what it considers to be a fact.

I suppose I could go around in every day life talking about things in a philosophical sense, but I would rather live my life than treat it as an abstract concept, so I choose not to do it that way.

Science is not foolproof, but it's the best we have.

So you're saying absolute truth is in the realm of the divine. Facts are man made efforts to get closer to the truth.

On re reading that wot i rote

I think its pretty good actually.

I know what you mean Ros, scientific facts are facts as discernable within the boundaries of science itself. There are laws governing what is considered factual and what not.

But I guess my question is "Is there any other fact".

Isnt what we "know" derived from observation, logical deduction and mathematics? i.e. the rest being intuition, speculation and word games? I would say there are two worlds here, the world of what we understand to be reality, and the world of the mind (which is at liberty to go anywhere).

Our "reality" is pretty confounding isn't it? We are a biological blob with what we call senses that are dependent upon our brain made up of chemical and biological changes. Is what we see really and truly what exists?

well speaking as one bio blob to another, I would say yes.

That is you are making life difficult for yourself if you assume otherwise, especially oncoming traffic.

Steven, I see you have never been to Vietnam, and have experienced being in their "traffic." LOL

Cicerone

Just as I type I can hear Homer Simpson singing the Doors theme to Apocalypse Now !

but no I've not been to Vietnam, fortunately I was born in the wrong country.

Were you in nam?

ps its ph ie Stephen btw

<You can write Stefan and Stephan equally, c.i.>

Was in Nam last month for the first time, and enjoyed myself tremendously - saw much, ate good food, drank good wine and beer, and met many nice people - both fellow travelers and locals.

<You can write Stefan and Stephan equally, c.i.>

see I told you that bloody man is everywhere. He's WATCHING YOU

its impossible to make even the slightest comment without it all being written down, and "may be used in evidence against you"



But you cant spell Stephen Stefan or Stephan, 'cause its Stephen.

glad you had a good time in 'nam ci

now can hear marge simpson...in new cartoon show so good night vietnam and to all listeners everywhere.

And Your Majesty

(sound of trumpets, 21 gun salute, national anthem and beer opening)

Well, I've been on a couple of threads during your sabbatical. :wink:

Steve, That's funny! Our local guide in Hanoi greeted us each morning with "Good morning, Vietnam!"

It is an age old philosophical question whether we can know anything. The argument is essentially whether or not some super intelligent demon could deceive us via our "faulty senses", after all, placing the spear exactly where the fish in the stream appears to be, according to our sense of sight, and you will not be successful in spearing the fish.

But the argument for our ability to "know anything" via information from our senses is simple and compelling:

We live in a "physical" world where everything that affects us is comprised of matter. This includes our senses themselves. Therefore it is to be expected that physical matter measuring other such matter will result in accurate retrieval of information about the latter. Further, through experience in our physical world we can "know" things we cannot directly observe. We know the wood is hard and black, and more. Thru experience and discipline of thought we know that there is something in the nature of the wood "atoms" that makes it "hard" but thru other, possibly even unrelated, observations of an even more general nature, we also know that the wood "atoms" are not black.

This, of course, is the whole goal of scientific inquiry. It first assumes that we can "know" and that we can also rise to the challenge of explaining that which cannot be directly known with the power of rational reasoning. Those that employ technology so garnered, like engineers, are even less philosophically encumbered. They merely need to know what works. Knowledge of quantum particle "spin", so far, is not needed to build super computers. But surely, like the ancient hunter informed about the refraction of light occurring between the contact line of two different substances (Air and Water), engineers informed further about quantum "spin" will exploit that information to their advantage.

JM

DOVER PENNSYLVANIA UPDATE

In a few weeks, Dover area voters will have the chance to create an entirely new school board. The current school board had been criticized for its decision to introduce "intelligent design" into high school biology classes as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Seven out of the nine seats on the Dover school board are on the ballot. Eighteen candidates are running for those seven seats. A poll of likely voters shows that 89% feel that the intelligent design issue will influence how they vote.