Lola wrote-
Quote:Nothing is provable.
I don't agree with that for a start. It is easy to prove that if a handsome gallant with larger than average feet waves a fist full of large denomination notes, symbolically of course, like Mathos does only he's an ugly runt, there are certain physical conditions which result and which are very predictable.
In some nunneries the large feet are a sufficient cause.
And you like all the other ID-ers keep missing the whole point re I.D. - it cannot be proved nor refuted using any known scientific principle or process. I have never even suggested that it could, and for that reason, I have steadily and repeatedly stated that it should not be taught as science.
Perhaps if you go back and read what I have actually said on this subject you might understand.
Example: You see the sun come up. You are alone. Where is your evidence that you saw the sun come up? What is your proof? Oh you can't prove it? How absolutely ridiculous and irrational of you to say that you did. I won't believe it until you prove it.
You see the above is your entire argument re the experience that I claim. So who is more unreasonable? The one who claims the experience that he or she has had? Or the one who refuses to believe it because it cannot be proved or falsified?
Foxfyre wrote:And you like all the other ID-ers keep missing the whole point re I.D. - it cannot be proved nor refuted using any known scientific principle or process. I have never even suggested that it could, and for that reason, I have steadily and repeatedly stated that it should not be taught as science.
Perhaps if you go back and read what I have actually said on this subject you might understand.
What is the "it" in this statement? Are you saying that ID cannot be proven therefore it should not be taught as science? If that's what you've said, then I agree with you.
But if you're also saying that nothing can be proven absolutely and for all time, therefore nothing is science, I don't agree. Science is not a thing. It's a method. It's a method with rules. It's a method for seeking truth. It not only doesn't require absolute truth, it's definition and purpose is based on the fact that absolute truth cannot be known. Science is a method for seeking a better and more specific understanding of how things work. There can be no end to it.
The turn the thread has taken seems to me proof that ladies are unsuited to the business of government.
All this stuff has been done over and over time after time. It is pointless.
The only salient point is the social effects of ID or anti-ID. I know why anti-IDers avoid that basic fact. It is because the adoption of anti-ID by a society does not bear even their own scrutiny. It also enables the debate to carry on indefinitely without resolving the impasse in the usual manner of the "it is-no it isn't- yes it is-oh no it isn't" style.
I find IDers who avoid the social consequences argument incomprehensible because it is their ace of trumps. They haven't got another card. If they refuse to play their ace they will go down to defeat which is why anti-IDers obstruct its deployment by fair means or foul.
I seem to remember that Mrs Clinton tried the new broom on American health provision and then discovered that the subject was a trifle more complex than she had bargained for. I got the impression that she had to be led into a quiet room and provided with some knitting tackle. Mrs Thatcher had to be conducted from the premises eventually.
Anyway ladies- I think it might help if you read the thread. It is not a normal thread. I have read it all and I can assure you that you are back at the beginning with the simple stuff.
"It's the economy-stupid"--the man said.
Foxy- you are scoring own goals. You are giving anti-IDers a free ride. Using a cricket metaphor you are bowling long-hops which sit up to be smacked into the stands by even average batsmen. You are taking the heat out of social consequences and I have spent nearly two years warming it up. You might be a greater threat to ID than any anti-IDer. This is Science and Mathematics after all. It isn't Spirituality and Religion.
The science involved in preparing the next generations has nothing to do with any individual experiences or with the bees in anybody's bonnet.
Why do you keep saying that you don't seek to have ID taught in science classes. I have already explained that it CAN'T (sorry I feel the need to draw extra attention to a word) be taught and that to even try is ridiculous. It's a Weltanschauung or a Zeitgeist if you like and it responds to exterior conditions with tiny adjustments not with broad brush strokes.
Yes, Spendi, ID CAN be taught and IS being taught as science in some places.
I have quite clearly stated again and and again and again and again that ID can neither be supported nor falsified using any known scientific process or principle and therefore it should not be taught as science. I have also said that the scientist (or science teacher) has no basis to reject it as fact but does have a basis to reject it as science as we define science.
(All that follows from this point relates to my rationale for why a science teacher would not be in error to explain ID as one of many theories of the origins and evolution of the universe but would be in error to presume to teach ID as science and/or to tell his/her students that there is no such thing as ID.)
I have repeatedly and quite clearly stated again and again and again that what a person reports that s/he has experienced cannot be proved nor disproved using any known scientific process or principle and nobody can presume authority to say what another person has or has not experienced.
I have repeatedly and quite clearly stated again and again and again that what a person reports that s/he has experienced cannot be proved nor disproved using any known scientific process or principle and nobody can presume authority to say what another person has or has not experienced.
(Your subsequent rationale that 'it is observable' that somebody saw the sun come up yesterday morning is just as irrational as presuming authority to know what anybody has experienced about anything. You cannot observe whether the person was up in time to see the sunrise yesterday or whether it was cloudy at the time or whether the person was outdoors or had a window positioned so that s/he could see it, etc. You can't 'observe' another person's reported experience unless you are sharing the experience with him/her.)
Foxy wrote-
Quote:Yes, Spendi, ID CAN be taught and IS being taught as science in some places.
The fact that it is being taught does not imply that it can be taught. All sorts of things are being taught by all sorts of people.
Foxfyre wrote:I have quite clearly stated again and and again and again and again that ID can neither be supported nor falsified using any known scientific process or principle and therefore it should not be taught as science. I have also said that the scientist (or science teacher) has no basis to reject it as fact but does have a basis to reject it as science as we define science.
(All that follows from this point relates to my rationale for why a science teacher would not be in error to explain ID as one of many theories of the origins and evolution of the universe but would be in error to presume to teach ID as science and/or to tell his/her students that there is no such thing as ID.)
I have repeatedly and quite clearly stated again and again and again that what a person reports that s/he has experienced cannot be proved nor disproved using any known scientific process or principle and nobody can presume authority to say what another person has or has not experienced.
Ok, let's see if we can find some common ground here.
#1. You say that ID is not science and should not be taught in science class. I agree.
#2. You say that ID cannot be proven/disproven absolutely, and therefor it cannot be ruled out as a possibility (outside of science, as noted above). I agree.
Acknowledging that we are in agreement to this point.
Quote:You pointed out that teachers could make statment #2 to any student that asked. And I agree, but I pointed out that all supernatural explanations (outside of scienc) are essentially equivalent because there are no limits to magic; Gnomes and Fairies are just as plausible outside of science as ID. The point I am making with this is that it's disingenuous and misleading to single out ID as anything special within the spectrum of magical possibilities (outside of science).
Here we do not agree. As I explained, I don't know anybody who has seen or experienced a gnome or fairy. I don't know anybody who knows anybody who has experienced a gnome or fairy. There is no credible record or documentation of people reporting sightings of or experiences with gnomes or fairies or claiming that these are real. Therefore, it is reasonably safe to say (and teach) that these are fun and interesting in their mythology, but they are creatures of fiction.
Conversely there are many millions of people who claim to have experienced God and these affirm each other in their individual experiences. There is an enormous mountain of artwork, writings, and other recorded histories spanning millenia testifying to these experiences and the understanding that has evolved from it. Does that fact that the majority of these believe in I.D. make I.D. a fact? No. But the science teacher is not out of line to acknowledge that it is one of many theories of the origin and evolution of the universe that cannot be tested or evaluated with any known scientific principles.
#3. You say that "what a person reports that s/he has experienced cannot be proved nor disproved using any known scientific process or principle and nobody can presume authority to say what another person has or has not experienced.". I agree.
However, I point out that what you (or anyone) experiences is not necessarily a fact, even though they have actually experienced it. For example, someone can be absolutely confinced that they felt an alien presence in the room with them, and I agree that they experienced it. However, the fact that they experienced it doesn't mean that there really was an alien presence in the room, it only means they 'felt or thought' there was an alien presence in the room.
There are often large differences between peoples experiences and reality. We lock people up in asylums for this all the time. Others aren't quite as extreme and they wander the streets with sandwich boards preaching the end of the world.
Most of us don't question the fact that people experience things, what we question is whether or not what they experienced was real. And the same applies to your conviction that God (whatever you think that is) exists. I believe you when you say you experienced that feeling but I simply don't believe it represents external reality.
Rosborne979 wrote:You pointed out that teachers could make statment #2 to any student that asked. And I agree, but I pointed out that all supernatural explanations (outside of scienc) are essentially equivalent because there are no limits to magic; Gnomes and Fairies are just as plausible outside of science as ID. The point I am making with this is that it's disingenuous and misleading to single out ID as anything special within the spectrum of magical possibilities (outside of science).
Here we do not agree. As I explained, I don't know anybody who has seen or experienced a gnome or fairy. I don't know anybody who knows anybody who has experienced a gnome or fairy. There is no credible record or documentation of people reporting sightings of or experiences with gnomes or fairies or claiming that these are real. Therefore, it is reasonably safe to say (and teach) that these are fun and interesting in their mythology, but they are creatures of fiction.
Conversely there are many millions of people who claim to have experienced God and these affirm each other in their individual experiences. There is an enormous mountain of artwork, writings, and other recorded histories spanning millenia testifying to these experiences and the understanding that has evolved from it. Does that fact that the majority of these believe in I.D. make I.D. a fact? No. But the science teacher is not out of line to acknowledge that it is one of many theories of the origin and evolution of the universe that cannot be tested or evaluated with any known scientific principles.
Foxfre,
The problem I see with your cold stove analogy is that temperature can be measured by the use of a technological devise called a thermomitor. The experience of God cannot be. If something can be observed and measured it can be studied scientifically. If it can't be observed and measured, it cannot.
For me, your analogy fails because the difference between a hot or cold stove and religious experience is the defining difference given the subject at hand, i.e. one can be measured and the other cannot.
Those who depend wholely on the reports of others, ignoring scientic data are doing something other than practicing the scientific method. Their motivation for doing so is beside the point.
Ok, so we really only have one point in contention; the idea that ID can be equated to other fantasies (Gnomes and Fairies as my example, but if you prefer I can change my example to Ghosts, or whatever).
I base my argument that they are equivalent on the fact that ID and other fantasies are based on the supernatural (Magic), and that all magical concepts are equally probable since none can be proven or disproven. This is a logical statement based on nothing more than definitions. It applies accross the board no matter who experiences anything.
You base your argument on the assumption that more people believe in one form of magic than another. You cite people's experience of God as an example, and you reject Gnomes and other fantasies because you yourself can't identify any group of people who make this claim.
Your argument is based on ill defined experiences and unknown numbers and assumptions which may not even be true. I bet there are huge numbers of people who will say they believe in ghosts, and have experienced other supernatural phenomenon. And there are huge numbers of people with different religious beliefs who have experienced a different concept of God than you have.
In short, I think you are fooling yourself into thinking that your viewpoint of unmeasurable things is somehow better than another persons viewpoint of unmeasurable things. You are also basing your view on a limit set of data (not having met people who have seen Ghosts or believe different religious views).
Lola wrote:Foxfre,
The problem I see with your cold stove analogy is that temperature can be measured by the use of a technological devise called a thermomitor. The experience of God cannot be. If something can be observed and measured it can be studied scientifically. If it can't be observed and measured, it cannot.
For me, your analogy fails because the difference between a hot or cold stove and religious experience is the defining difference given the subject at hand, i.e. one can be measured and the other cannot.
Those who depend wholely on the reports of others, ignoring scientic data are doing something other than practicing the scientific method. Their motivation for doing so is beside the point.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Farmerman when he used the identical analogy.
Explain how you will measure the temperature of a stove that I touched yesterday or last week. I have no doubt that it was hot because I touched it. How do you use any scientific principle to verify or disprove my experience with the stove?
Explain how you will measure the temperature of a stove that I touched yesterday or last week. I have no doubt that it was hot because I touched it. How do you use any scientific principle to verify or disprove my experience with the stove?
_________________
