timberlandko wrote:Anonymouse wrote: Science means knowledge. What sort of knowledge are you referring to? When has it ever observed a single celled organism turn into a whale?
What Science has observed leads inexorably to the deductive conclusion that no other explanation makes sense.
I have no problem with science when it behaves like science. Science is about knowledge. What the scientific method imparts on us is the ability to make a claim, to observe and repeat that, which many parts of Darwinian evolution fall short on. Of course, there is a bit of induction which you forgot.
Basic metaphysical or philosophical assumptions are necessary in any thing, because conclusions cannot be made until you have something to make them with. Everybody makes a few metaphyisical or philosophical assumptions, even modern science, the two of which are induction and causality as demonstrated by Hume, and in the words of Bertrand Russell, require nothing more than 'blind faith'.
timberlandko wrote:Anonymouse wrote: People once believed in Newtonian physics. When something better came along they started believing in that.
It is a typically erroneous ID-iot assumption that Newtonian Physics has been replaced. You'll not get far in Capital "
S"
Science without Euclidian Geometry and Newtonian Physics; they explain why Quantum Theory works, and vice-versa. The 2 paradigms are not contradictory, they are symbiotic and interdependent. This is amply demonstrated
Via a Feynman Graph, and computationally confirmed through
Taylor & Wiles's Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. David Raymond's entry-level college physics textbook
A Radically Modern Approach to Introductory Physics essentially is a discussion of the relationship between Newtonian and post-Newtonian mechanics. In the preface to that extremely accessible and engaging work, Raymond observes:
Quote: ... students don't go into physics to learn about balls rolling down inclined planes -- they are (rightly) interested in quarks and black holes and quantum computing, and at this stage they are largely unable to make the connection between such mundane topics and the exciting things that they have read about in popular books and magazines.
You seem to miss the nature of my criticism and instead resort to the typical clash of Manichaean assumptions that if someone is not with your ideological camp, they must ipso facto be of the opposing camp. I don't understand the need for personal attacks, unless of course criticism of your beloved dogma is uncomfortable and gives one a crack in their edifice of thought.
Science, before it can be used as a workable model, must first be accepted as somehow valid, in order to be used as a conveyor of knowledge. Science, or what science is, i.e. knowledge, has changed throughout time. Conceptual models have been created and destroyed, and yesterdays knowledge is today's heresy. All knowledge is societies psychological perception of itself. That which we learn, we must first put faith in. We trust in the cirriculum, content, and criteria of certain forms of acquiring knowledge, without which we would not have what we deem to be truth. In order for something to work as a tool of knowledge, i.e. the scientific method, it must first be accepted as valid, in other words, you must first put trust and faith and accept it blindly, before you can use it as such. You cannot use science, or the scientific method, to prove exactly that - the scientific method.
The number system is a perfect example. For any of it to be valid, it must first be believed and accepted. Everyone believes that the notational system which we use is the official one. Why is the conceptual idea of one written as 1? Why could it not be another symbol? Why is two written as 2? It must first be agreed upon, and trusted, for it to be disseminated as knowledge. The same applies to the criteria science uses in order to learn about the natural world. There must first be faith in what it uses, otherwise it would not work.
That at point Euclids geometry reigned supreme, and at another it was Newton's physics which was seen as the dominant interpretation of truth, is not absolved by the fact that they can be viewed as an amalgamation of knowledge acquisition. When you speak of quarks or wave functions, and energy, people often think that somehow these are equivalent to everyday objects that are observable such as trees, stones, or oceans. The difference between them is that a change in a scientific model is the difference between real and invented concepts. Changes in a scientific model can absolve a black hole or a quark as a conceptual entity, but they cannot rid the everyday and observable objects such as trees, cliffs or oceans.
timberlandko wrote:ID-iots base their argument for That Which They Would Prefer To Be soley on That Which Is Not.
Never does nature say one thing and wisdom another.
Juvenal
Ad hominems are a fallacy. Try to avoid them.
I have always appreciated the sincerity of your posts. 
