On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:46:21 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think you and Andy are at cross purposes because you faiil to recognise
that athere are three, maybe four, distinct sets of 'truths' being
discussed here

I don't think we really are at cross purposes at all. There are problems of
language - because it's difficult to get the balance right between formal and
informal terms - but those have mainly been clarified. I think Andy is too
nice and doesn't fully appreciate just how devious the snake-oil salesmen can
be.

Oh, I understand completely how devious they could be, as I mentioned
earlier in connection with the Arkansas museum.

However, I do think that people should be able to make their own
assessments about that and that neither teachers, nor anybody else
should assume the role of censor.


I agree pretty well with your analysis of truths and I think I'm generally
fair-dealing with them all. I have no objection to creation myths - kept out
of science.

--

..andy

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:01:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
Intelligent design is an attempt to
make it appear so, but it still ain't scientific.

That could also be.

Not to anyone who
understands the underlying basis of science (which does not mean all
scientists, to be sure)


This all assumes that the basis and definitions of science have to
remain fixed for all time. That's my point about it being self
referential unless it is permissible for the definitions to change. If
it isn't, then the scope for understanding becomes necessarily
limited.

I think that if you change the underlying definitions of science it
would cease to be science..rather like saying that you are going to
modify religion to eliminate God..most of what you once recognized would
vanish..you'd end up with Buddhism instead.

Well is it? The way that we understand the definition of science is
not the same as it was in the past if you want to be at all specific.
Also at a finer grained level, details such as the ways that things
are described change as well.



Most of what science is depends on very few axioms

- we exist and the world exists and we can be aware of it
- nothing happens without a reason
- we can find the reason.

Change those and we aren't living in a particularly recognizable world.

On that broad set of axioms, a creationist could suggest God to be the
reason (when expressed in his terms).

Herein lies the problem. How inclusive or exclusive should
definitions be? If the definition is to broad, it allows in things
that you might prefer not to see included. Too narrow, and you can be
accused of not being scientific (i.e. open to new theories).













--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:06:53 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Standard scientific requirements as set for any scientific theory. They
have been well rehearsed. Feel free to describe those alternatives and how
they match up to those requirements.

No. You're limiting the scope by suggesting that alternatives have to fit
within established scientific principles.

Please explain why you think that one group of people be allowed their idea to
be counted as science and ignore every test that make something acceptable as
a scientific idea - and not allow everyone else with a crackpot idea.


Two things here.

Who is to say that the boundaries of what science should or should not
include should remain fixed.

It is a loaded view to say that ideas outside of that are "crackpot".
You may think that and I may think that, but others don't.

Looked at in a different way, this is very similar to saying that
somebody adhering to my affiliation is OK (even though I might
disagree slightly) but somebody whose ideas differ markedly is a
crackpot.

--

..andy

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:04:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Well I do seem them as not overlapping. They are not mutually exclusive
though. Its not as though you can only have one hat on your head at one
time. You CAN wear two..but its an odd and precarious way to proceed I
would aver.

OTOH you MIGHT have one for rainy days and one for sunny days.

However, one could have a hat made partly from the material of one and
partly from that of another.


Religions is possibly the hat of last resort when all others have failed
you - I mean its never been a darned bit of good in the past, but hey,
if its all you have left, might as well try..:-)

You can imagine that others might not have the same perspective
(within their frame of reference).



I've always said that if God had meant people to be religious, he
wouldn't have given them brains.


There are some people of faith who would not describe themselves as
religious....








--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:12:28 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Quite possibly. However I don't think that it ultimately stands up
simply because the scope is limited by the self referential nature.

OK. You or a child of yours has a potentially fatal disease that could be
tackled with the right research and you have 50 million GBP to give to people
who can conduct that research. Do you give the money to people you know will
follow scientific principles in their research or people who will accept any
standard that will come up with what they had decided was the answer before
they even bothered to look at the problem?


What I would or wouldn't do doesn't really matter here. Also, you
are bringing the comparison to a decision covering a short period of
time (less than 100 years). I wasn't limiting the scope to anything
as narrow as either.

Moreover, you are suggesting that the alternative decided on the
answer before looking at the problem. In the scientific context,
that might be true, but in the context of those arriving at the answer
through what might be a different approach it could be quite valid.



--

..andy

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

re Andy

I really do not see where you are coming from - unless you are just
trolling again.

Devils advocate or closet creationist?

--
Roger Chapman

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:46:21 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think you and Andy are at cross purposes because you faiil to recognise
that athere are three, maybe four, distinct sets of 'truths' being
discussed here
I don't think we really are at cross purposes at all. There are problems of
language - because it's difficult to get the balance right between formal and
informal terms - but those have mainly been clarified. I think Andy is too
nice and doesn't fully appreciate just how devious the snake-oil salesmen can
be.

Oh, I understand completely how devious they could be, as I mentioned
earlier in connection with the Arkansas museum.

However, I do think that people should be able to make their own
assessments about that and that neither teachers, nor anybody else
should assume the role of censor.


Teachers aren't acting as censors: they are acting to keep science
scientific. The whole act of teaching anything is in your terms
censorship, in that there is a defined curriculum and one does not
deviate from it too far.

As I mentioned somewhere else, would it be OK to have e.g. a
_compulsory_ sermon by an atheist in every church in the country where
the ideas of a a Godless universe are promoted every single week to the
faithful?

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:01:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
Intelligent design is an attempt to
make it appear so, but it still ain't scientific.
That could also be.

Not to anyone who
understands the underlying basis of science (which does not mean all
scientists, to be sure)


This all assumes that the basis and definitions of science have to
remain fixed for all time. That's my point about it being self
referential unless it is permissible for the definitions to change. If
it isn't, then the scope for understanding becomes necessarily
limited.
I think that if you change the underlying definitions of science it
would cease to be science..rather like saying that you are going to
modify religion to eliminate God..most of what you once recognized would
vanish..you'd end up with Buddhism instead.

Well is it? The way that we understand the definition of science is
not the same as it was in the past if you want to be at all specific.
Also at a finer grained level, details such as the ways that things
are described change as well.


Most of what science is depends on very few axioms

- we exist and the world exists and we can be aware of it
- nothing happens without a reason
- we can find the reason.

Change those and we aren't living in a particularly recognizable world.

On that broad set of axioms, a creationist could suggest God to be the
reason (when expressed in his terms).


Indeed. And at that point science ceases to be a reasonable activity at all.

Herein lies the problem. How inclusive or exclusive should
definitions be? If the definition is to broad, it allows in things
that you might prefer not to see included. Too narrow, and you can be
accused of not being scientific (i.e. open to new theories).


You have already defined how inclusive. If you simply deny the axioms on
which science is based, you deny all validity to science.

Philosophically, this is a valid metaphysical perspective, but to claim
that its science is completely wrong.

Science doesn't deny the existence of A God, it merely points out that
an approach based on the irrelevance* of a god, is demonstrably
_effective_.

* in a strict technical sense. The concept of God, if you like, appears
on both sides of the equation, and can therefore be canceled out. Or to
put it another way, science analyzes the world orthogonally to God,
because God can't be measured and pinned down, so he is simply ignored.

If you like science is concerned with the predictability of the world.
God, being ineffable almighty and traditionally capricious, is not
subject to analysis. Fortunately divine intervention in most science
seems demonstrably rare.

You might say that science concerns itself strictly with those things
that God has seen fit to leave to Nature to handle in a reductive way.

What irks the Creationists, is that the set of all things that science
seems not to be able to pin down, seems to be rather small, and getting
smaller. In short, the prime Heresy that frighten the faithful, is that
more and more people see no particular reason to invoke a Deus ex Machina..

I have had the same blank response from all of these people..'you cannot
live without Faith (I can) ..you must believe in something (I
don't)..How do you explain all the things you cannot explain? (I don't
even attempt to mostly)..they have been led to understand that Science
is a Faith similar to theirs, but based on antithetical principles..in
fact you are coming precisely from this direction..

What they cannot accept is that science is not ultimately based on faith
at all, but on observations...the only Faith involved if any is involved
is in the act of perceiving the universe as we do, and in our ability to
reduce it to some form of simpler MECHANISMS that lie behind it. Not
Intelligences. This is only done because it seems to WORK. NOT because
it 'seems reasonable' or 'it must be so'..

What you SHOULD realize is that ultimately this is what religion was as
well..only at some point around the time of Paul of Tarsus did religion
cease to be an exploration of the world, and become a political tool of
civilization, a dogmatically enforced single view that originally
stifled dissent, and brought political stability, but now stifles
progress, and brings political instability..

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Oh, I understand completely how devious they could be, as I mentioned
earlier in connection with the Arkansas museum.

However, I do think that people should be able to make their own
assessments about that and that neither teachers, nor anybody else
should assume the role of censor.

So do you think science teachers in science lessons should be required to
present ID as a valid scientific theory to stand alongside evolution?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:06:53 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Standard scientific requirements as set for any scientific theory. They
have been well rehearsed. Feel free to describe those alternatives and
how they match up to those requirements.

No. You're limiting the scope by suggesting that alternatives have to
fit within established scientific principles.

Please explain why you think that one group of people be allowed their
idea to be counted as science and ignore every test that make something
acceptable as a scientific idea - and not allow everyone else with a
crackpot idea.


Two things here.

Who is to say that the boundaries of what science should or should not
include should remain fixed.

It is a loaded view to say that ideas outside of that are "crackpot". You
may think that and I may think that, but others don't.

Looked at in a different way, this is very similar to saying that somebody
adhering to my affiliation is OK (even though I might disagree slightly)
but somebody whose ideas differ markedly is a crackpot.

We have altready discussed this and looked at a couple of crackpot ideas. If
we take your view then there is no way to differentiate between ideas.
Anything goes. As a science teacher I teach anything I want (or what the
governors tell me to teach) and it need have no link with reality. I'm clearly
allowed to tell the kids that stepping off a 20 foot ladder on the 29th
February is quite safe because the rays emanating from the Earth's second moon
Whoolzibitz reduce gravity every fourth year. It must be true because it's
part of science according to Andy Hall.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Herein lies the problem. How inclusive or exclusive should
definitions be? If the definition is to broad, it allows in things
that you might prefer not to see included. Too narrow, and you can be
accused of not being scientific (i.e. open to new theories).

Now that *is* a problem of science and scientists. But that's not a problem
that could ever open up science to the likes of ID. You have pressure to keep
out continental drift - until the evidence is overwhelming and there is an
explanation of how plate tectonics works. The idea of an aquatic ape is
rejected - but it does solve a whole series of problems with the standard
theories and with some solid evidence could be accepted, and in the meantime
the traditional theories are put less confidently. But you need that barrier
to ensure that the evidence is there. You don't accept a 'theory' that has no
evidence and no explanation - unless you have an ulterior motive.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:06:53 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Standard scientific requirements as set for any scientific theory. They
have been well rehearsed. Feel free to describe those alternatives and how
they match up to those requirements.
No. You're limiting the scope by suggesting that alternatives have to fit
within established scientific principles.
Please explain why you think that one group of people be allowed their idea to
be counted as science and ignore every test that make something acceptable as
a scientific idea - and not allow everyone else with a crackpot idea.


Two things here.

Who is to say that the boundaries of what science should or should not
include should remain fixed.


No idea, since no one is saying that at all.

It is a loaded view to say that ideas outside of that are "crackpot".
You may think that and I may think that, but others don't.

Crackpot is pejorative: Let's just say that ideas that fail to meet
Poppers criteria are simply 'not science'


Looked at in a different way, this is very similar to saying that
somebody adhering to my affiliation is OK (even though I might
disagree slightly) but somebody whose ideas differ markedly is a
crackpot.

No: this is not an affiliation. Science is not a belief system.

I wish you would stop long enough to actually listen to the philosophy
of science. It makes it quite clear that certain classes of ideas are
outside the remit of science. No one denies their validity at that
level: What is denied is their place inside Science.

Popper was ultimately quite clear on this point: A theory that cannot be
falsified is not a scientific theory.

You may, for example, propose that in fact you, and I juts woke up this
morning,and that every memory we have of yesterday, is just some shared
implanted dream, by some outside agency, and that this is in fact simply
a new dream, that is in fact the only actual experience of anything we
will ever have.

Now this is a simple, and totally explanatory theory, and indeed it
could be completely true. BUT it is not scientific.

Why not? Because we have no way to falsify it. We cannot, as in the
Matrix, take the red pill and be transported into an alternative reality
from which we can objectively view this one. The theory is SO all
encompassing, that whilst it can account for everything, in the end it
accounts for nothing.

Now a theory that says that we are in that dream, but includes the red
pill..is a different matter. Or is it? Here there are definite actions
we can take to verify all that...But even so, is the red pill simply
another part of the same dream? Aha! NOW you get the point about what
makes a truly crackpot theory. No matter what the outcome of any
experiment, the thesis remains unchallengeable.

Popper spent a lot of time, and care, understanding this point
completely. In the end, he came to the conclusion that this rendered
crackpot theories as demonstrably unscientific, not because they were
believed to be false, but because they added nothing we didn't know
already. Unfortunately they rendered a lot of so called rational
scientific theories - particularly political and psychological theories
- Freud's for one - as unscientific too.

If you like, crackpot theories replace a possibly analyzable
uncertainty, with a completely unanalyzable certainty. This has value in
calming peoples fears, but adds nothing to our understanding. From the
rational atheists perspective, it is a psychological process. Not Truth
as such..the only scientific interest is to note that belief is
something un disproveable, has a distinct effect on the Believers.

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:12:28 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Quite possibly. However I don't think that it ultimately stands up
simply because the scope is limited by the self referential nature.

OK. You or a child of yours has a potentially fatal disease that could be
tackled with the right research and you have 50 million GBP to give to
people who can conduct that research. Do you give the money to people you
know will follow scientific principles in their research or people who
will accept any standard that will come up with what they had decided was
the answer before they even bothered to look at the problem?

What I would or wouldn't do doesn't really matter here.

It doesn't. Your idea of science is wrong and it won't change in the way you
suggest (thank god!).
But your decision matters for this discussion. Are you seriously suggesting
that you are undecided.

[Snip]

Moreover, you are suggesting that the alternative decided on the answer
before looking at the problem. In the scientific context, that might be
true, but in the context of those arriving at the answer through what might
be a different approach it could be quite valid.

I don't think you're quite getting the problem. The creationists are demanding
equal time for their religious ideas to be presented as science by science
teachers in science lessons in the USA where it is forbidden to teach RE in
schools. They are also making headway in some schools in the UK (and
elsewhere). They want to teach your kids and they want to present ID as
science to your kids and the 'science' they want to present is their literal
interpretation of Genesis.

Now. My question. Where do *you* put your money?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:04:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Well I do seem them as not overlapping. They are not mutually exclusive
though. Its not as though you can only have one hat on your head at one
time. You CAN wear two..but its an odd and precarious way to proceed I
would aver.

OTOH you MIGHT have one for rainy days and one for sunny days.

However, one could have a hat made partly from the material of one and
partly from that of another.


Well, if it works, use it...
Whatever gets you through the night..is all right :-)

Religions is possibly the hat of last resort when all others have failed
you - I mean its never been a darned bit of good in the past, but hey,
if its all you have left, might as well try..:-)

You can imagine that others might not have the same perspective
(within their frame of reference).

One can only rely on ones personal experience in these matters..unless
of course you would rather believe in a dusty old book and the
mutterings of the God-botherers instead of your own experience. I mean
if you are convinced enough that the hat will keep the world out,
perhaps it doesn't matter what its made of.


I've always said that if God had meant people to be religious, he
wouldn't have given them brains.


There are some people of faith who would not describe themselves as
religious....

Indeed. I also know Faith very well. Its a useful trick to play on
yourself. I use it constantly. I just don't Believe in anything - I
don't need to Believe in Father Christmas in order to engender a spirit
of hope, expectation and excitement. I bypass him and simply flick the
internal switches...;-)

Roger wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

re Andy

I really do not see where you are coming from - unless you are just
trolling again.

Devils advocate or closet creationist?


I suspect actually someone who is in fact a fairly devout Christian, and
who hasn't actually bothered to look at it closely enough to see where
reason ends and faith begins, and accept that that point exists.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:48:40 +0000, Roger wrote:

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

re Andy

I really do not see where you are coming from - unless you are just
trolling again.

Devils advocate or closet creationist?

I'm wondering if Andy will be consistent in his (apparent) view that
we shouldn't be limiting ourselves to the narrow confines of a strict
scientific ethos and embrace other frames of refernece the next time
Drivel posts some nonsense.

Maybe Drivel has faith in his 109% boiler efficiency. Perhaps a Prius
doesn't have a gearbox in his frame of reference.

--

Phil Young

John Cartmell wrote:

I don't think you're quite getting the problem. The creationists are demanding
equal time for their religious ideas to be presented as science by science
teachers in science lessons in the USA where it is forbidden to teach RE in
schools.

Th answer would seem to be to introduce comparative religion into the
curriculum.


They are also making headway in some schools in the UK (and
elsewhere). They want to teach your kids and they want to present ID as
science to your kids and the 'science' they want to present is their literal
interpretation of Genesis.

Indeed.

Now. My question. Where do *you* put your money?


Currently, copper futures..even with speedfit plastic..:-)

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:26:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

No, but ot does have to be the case in a science class..if there is one
thing a student should emerge from such with, its the ability to look at
things in a scientific way.

As well as alternative ways. Then he can decide which he wishes to
use.

Yes, but its not the job of the science class to teach him that, any
more than he learns how to make nuclear weapons in the pottery class

Yes, I understand your point. However, it is assuming the scope of
science is defined in a certain way which does not allow for
alternatives.




He MAY also go to Sunday school and learn to look at things in a
religious way too..great. Now he has two methods of looking at things,
whichever is the more useful at the time.

OK. However why should being taught about science and how that works
be a necessity ( I do think that that is valid, BTW), while being
taught about other ideas not be?


I don't think it is a necessity, but it does turn out to be useful.

OK, but others may have a different view and it is a matter of
opinion.



I do think lots of other ideas should be taught. I was exposed to
gazillions of them at school..all the way from Bishop Berkeley, via
Vance Packard, Jane Austen to Einstein..

well rounded toolkit I'd say.

However we did NOT study Jane Austen in RK, not Einstein in English
class, nor Vance Packard in the science labs..

I understand. However, I don't think that it has to remain that way,
necessarily.





No one is claiming that science has the only answer...its the ID'ers who
claim that the Bible has the ultimate answer to everything that are the
cause of the problem.

I'm not defending any position at all, but if there is acceptance of
it in a population, whether you or I agree or not, it should not be
suppressed any more than something else is made compulsory.


Well that could go for anything from wife beating to heroin addiction
and cannibalism.

It could. The question is really who should the decision makers in
terms of the delivered content and the channels through which it is
delivered.



I am not for suppression debate on theological matters at all. I love it
as you can see. I am just utterly against those who would impose it and
deny all debate on it thereafter.


I understand. However, one could also think of a position where
people would be utterly against imposition of evolutionary science
presented as the truth and saying that their understandings are
irrelevant to it.




I think you are wildly misled there. The ID and creationists are bending
theories to fit dogma.

That they may well be and I am not defending them. All that I have
said is that within their frame of reference, they believe that their
position is correct, just as the scientist does from within his.


I am not so sure that the ones who do the religious marketing in fact do
believe it at all. Its a naked struggle to dominate the world views of
the naive.

I tend to agree, but I would say that there is also marketing of
various concepts in science, although perhaps from a sincerely held
position.

Sadly he who shouts the loudest and lies with the most
confidence usually wins that one. Look at our government.

Mmmmm....



What is not reasonable in either direction is for one to dismiss the
ideas of the other because they do not fall inside that frame of
reference.

What is reasonable is to dismiss the ideas of someone who is making a
false argument, even by their own alleged standards.

If it's by their alleged standards, then yes. If it's by your
standards then no. Well, you can dismiss them, but not on the same
basis as you could if it is from the premise of the other person.

Ive talked with many of the Devout. They all share one thing in common,
they don't think or reason to well.

But that is in terms of your understanding of what reason means.

When you come up with logical
contradictions they always retreat into 'well its a belief thing, man,
you either do or you don't, and if you do it just feels better'

When I pointed out that the average smack head says the same, only he
says 'smack' instead of 'believe' they didn't seem too pleased.

I don't suppose that they would. From their perspective this ia as
different, I suspect, as theirs is to yours.




What they can't cope with is that when I say its possible to live an
entirely reasonable and comfortable life without believing in anything
at all much..they simply don't believe me :-)

Oh of course. It's not their experience. They derive their level of
comfort by believing in something, you derive yours by either
deliberately or implicitly not.





Do you think that children should be taught how to inject heroin? How to
perform rape? Be subject to being shagged at age 9 because some section
of the population thinks its OK?

No I don't particularly, but I don't think that it's my decision
either since I don't have any school age children.




Well I happen to feel that being taught that religious belief is 'just
the same as science' is far more damaging than ANY of the above. Its a
total lie. And its very very dangerous.


I would agree with you that within the terms of the current definition
of science that that would be the case. However, I don't necessarily
think that that definition has to remain that way for all time.








?.Darwinism merely tried to come up with something
that fit the facts as they appeared to be with no particular
preconceptions..indeed quite the reverse..it was deeply disturbing to
Darwin to have to conclude that large parts of his Bible were in fact in
total contradiction to what he himself had to assume were actual
facts...in the fossil records.

Darwinism isn't the truth, its a valid scientific hypothesis that hasn't
yet been falsified, and has no significant competitor.

That's fine, but is from the perspective of science.

Of COURSE it is..because there is not other point in Darwinism except
from the perspective of science.


I really do not see where you are coming from - unless you are just
trolling again.

I never troll. I can also appreciate that perhaps you don't
understand where I am coming from.

It is simply that I am pointing out that "truths" that we hold dear,
be they religious or acceptance of the definitions and scope of
science should be subject to challenge.

That is what discovery is all about.




I mean, should we examine the religious implications of a custard tart?

Teach Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance?

Do deep studies on the philosophy of masturbation?

Religion and science have (almost) nothing to do with each other.


That depends on your perspective on each of them and what they
include. If you prefer to see them in discrete and compartmentalised
ways, then that's fine. I don't, and see no reason why there can't
be elements of one in the other or overlaps.







ID is not a
competitor - because it explains nothing, allows us to predict nothing,
other than perhaps infer something of the nature of the bitter and
twisted and fairly random sort of creator we must have had to make it
like it is...;-)

It would only be a competitor if scrutinised from scientific
perspective. I haven't studied the detail and don't intend to,
because it is its own set of stuff.


It has been scrutinized and found entirely wanting.

On the basis of science as defined today and with the present state of
our knowledge.



However, as you said earlier, (to paraphrase) it is part of a battle
for the hearts and minds of the masses.

I see a similarity in that respect with some scientists and those who
take Darwinism verbatim and would wish to exclude alternatives.


Well you have fallen into the ID's false logic, incomplete understanding
and utter bull**** trap then.

I certainly haven't because I deliberately have not looked at what it
seeks to say.


Good luck to you. I suggest you become born again, give your life to
Jesus, and wait for your inevitable death without ever using your brain
again, secure in the knowledge that God doesn't want you to.


I haven't expressed any personal position or belief at all.

You are making the fatal mistake of assuming that anybody who suggests
that there might be alternatives and extensions to the current scope
and definition of science is in a completely different category where
thinking is excluded.

That is not the case and in itself is adopting as much of a dogmatic
position, in the way that you have said it, as the people who you
accuse of having a dogmatic position of belief.





--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:29:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:46:21 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think you and Andy are at cross purposes because you faiil to recognise
that athere are three, maybe four, distinct sets of 'truths' being
discussed here
I don't think we really are at cross purposes at all. There are problems of
language - because it's difficult to get the balance right between formal and
informal terms - but those have mainly been clarified. I think Andy is too
nice and doesn't fully appreciate just how devious the snake-oil salesmen can
be.

Oh, I understand completely how devious they could be, as I mentioned
earlier in connection with the Arkansas museum.

However, I do think that people should be able to make their own
assessments about that and that neither teachers, nor anybody else
should assume the role of censor.


Teachers aren't acting as censors: they are acting to keep science
scientific. The whole act of teaching anything is in your terms
censorship, in that there is a defined curriculum and one does not
deviate from it too far.

Then the question becomes who defines the curriculum.


As I mentioned somewhere else, would it be OK to have e.g. a
_compulsory_ sermon by an atheist in every church in the country where
the ideas of a a Godless universe are promoted every single week to the
faithful?

A church is a different environment to a school.


--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:54:24 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Oh, I understand completely how devious they could be, as I mentioned
earlier in connection with the Arkansas museum.

However, I do think that people should be able to make their own
assessments about that and that neither teachers, nor anybody else
should assume the role of censor.

So do you think science teachers in science lessons should be required to
present ID as a valid scientific theory to stand alongside evolution?


I have not said anything about ID at all, because I have not looked at
it and have no intention of doing so. I have not said whether I
think it is a good or a bad idea.

My points have been entirely related to ones concerning the scope of
science as well as who defines what the curriculum should be.

I have simply challenged the notion that science should have a fixed
scope for all time, especially when within it, entire ways of
describing things change dramatically.

I can understand that people might be frightened by the thought of
that concept, but I'm not.

I also don't think that the educators should be the only ones who
should define what goes into the curriculum. I think that parents
should have a strong input to that. Again, an educator might find
that threatening.


--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:50:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Change those and we aren't living in a particularly recognizable world.

On that broad set of axioms, a creationist could suggest God to be the
reason (when expressed in his terms).


Indeed. And at that point science ceases to be a reasonable activity at all.

As defined from a current scientific viewpoint. A creationist may
believe that his position is entirely reasonable, as indeed might two
scientists with what to them appear to be completely reasonable
positions but quite different.



Herein lies the problem. How inclusive or exclusive should
definitions be? If the definition is to broad, it allows in things
that you might prefer not to see included. Too narrow, and you can be
accused of not being scientific (i.e. open to new theories).


You have already defined how inclusive. If you simply deny the axioms on
which science is based, you deny all validity to science.

I haven't. All I have said is that the definitions of science should
of themselves be subject to scrutiny and change.


Philosophically, this is a valid metaphysical perspective, but to claim
that its science is completely wrong.

Of course, and I haven't claimed that.


Science doesn't deny the existence of A God, it merely points out that
an approach based on the irrelevance* of a god, is demonstrably
_effective_.

* in a strict technical sense. The concept of God, if you like, appears
on both sides of the equation, and can therefore be canceled out. Or to
put it another way, science analyzes the world orthogonally to God,
because God can't be measured and pinned down, so he is simply ignored.

This then depends on the extent and terms of the experiment and what
one is setting out to discover.



If you like science is concerned with the predictability of the world.
God, being ineffable almighty and traditionally capricious, is not
subject to analysis. Fortunately divine intervention in most science
seems demonstrably rare.

You already said that "science science analyzes the world orthogonally
to God, because God can't be measured and pinned down, so he is simply
ignored."

If something is ignored because it can't be analysed within the
current scope of science, how can one say whether it is or isn't
relevent?




You might say that science concerns itself strictly with those things
that God has seen fit to leave to Nature to handle in a reductive way.

Equally, who is to say that the things that occur within the framework
that people can understand through the current concepts of science are
not part of a Grand Plan? That is why I made the point that a belief
in Divine Guidance is not incompatible with what is observed through
science.




What irks the Creationists, is that the set of all things that science
seems not to be able to pin down, seems to be rather small, and getting
smaller. In short, the prime Heresy that frighten the faithful, is that
more and more people see no particular reason to invoke a Deus ex Machina..

I have had the same blank response from all of these people..'you cannot
live without Faith (I can) ..you must believe in something (I
don't)..How do you explain all the things you cannot explain? (I don't
even attempt to mostly)..they have been led to understand that Science
is a Faith similar to theirs, but based on antithetical principles..in
fact you are coming precisely from this direction..

Actually I'm not. I haven't said where I stand on this and am not
going to. I am simply pointing out that each of these views the other
with suspicion, principally because of a lack of understanding of the
other's position and preconceived ideas of mutual exclusivity.





What they cannot accept is that science is not ultimately based on faith
at all, but on observations...the only Faith involved if any is involved
is in the act of perceiving the universe as we do, and in our ability to
reduce it to some form of simpler MECHANISMS that lie behind it. Not
Intelligences. This is only done because it seems to WORK. NOT because
it 'seems reasonable' or 'it must be so'..

What you SHOULD realize is that ultimately this is what religion was as
well..only at some point around the time of Paul of Tarsus did religion
cease to be an exploration of the world, and become a political tool of
civilization, a dogmatically enforced single view that originally
stifled dissent, and brought political stability, but now stifles
progress, and brings political instability..


That depends on whether you are talking about organised religion
(which could be described in the same contexts as political parties on
a grand scale) or what an individual might believe for themselves on
an unencumbered basis.

If it's the former, then I tend to agree with you, but organised
religion was not what I had in mind.



--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:07:30 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Herein lies the problem. How inclusive or exclusive should
definitions be? If the definition is to broad, it allows in things
that you might prefer not to see included. Too narrow, and you can be
accused of not being scientific (i.e. open to new theories).

Now that *is* a problem of science and scientists. But that's not a problem
that could ever open up science to the likes of ID.

Sure. This is why I have specifically not commented on validity or
not of ID.


You have pressure to keep
out continental drift - until the evidence is overwhelming and there is an
explanation of how plate tectonics works. The idea of an aquatic ape is
rejected - but it does solve a whole series of problems with the standard
theories and with some solid evidence could be accepted, and in the meantime
the traditional theories are put less confidently. But you need that barrier
to ensure that the evidence is there. You don't accept a 'theory' that has no
evidence and no explanation - unless you have an ulterior motive.

I agree with you there in terms of the progression and change in the
presentation of the validity of theories.

I can also understand the point that theories without evidence and
explanation not be accepted. However, that is from the perspective
of, and with the qualifier that the evidence and explanation is scoped
by current scientific understanding.

I don't believe that that has to remain fixed for all time.

Therefore I am uncomfortable with the idea of explicitly excluding
theories, even if one finds them lacking in evidence (on one's own
principles) or distasteful.




--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:00:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:


Two things here.

Who is to say that the boundaries of what science should or should not
include should remain fixed.

It is a loaded view to say that ideas outside of that are "crackpot". You
may think that and I may think that, but others don't.

Looked at in a different way, this is very similar to saying that somebody
adhering to my affiliation is OK (even though I might disagree slightly)
but somebody whose ideas differ markedly is a crackpot.

We have altready discussed this and looked at a couple of crackpot ideas.

There is one of my issues. As soon as you use a label like "crackpot"
you are labelling something on a belief/emotional, or at the very
least loaded basis.

If
we take your view then there is no way to differentiate between ideas.

Of course there is. You can decide as an individual whether you
prefer to accept one idea or the other. You can base that decision on
whether you also accept the frame of reference of one or of the other
or a combination of the two.

At the least, one should have the freedom to make up one's own mind
based on one's chosen criteria.


Anything goes. As a science teacher I teach anything I want (or what the
governors tell me to teach) and it need have no link with reality.

It becomes then a question of what each understands reality to be.


I'm clearly
allowed to tell the kids that stepping off a 20 foot ladder on the 29th
February is quite safe because the rays emanating from the Earth's second moon
Whoolzibitz reduce gravity every fourth year. It must be true because it's
part of science according to Andy Hall.

That is making rather light of a serious point about a principle of
what the basis should be for inclusion in a subject area.



--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I also don't think that the educators should be the only ones who
should define what goes into the curriculum. I think that parents
should have a strong input to that. Again, an educator might find
that threatening.

So if parents want their kids to be brought up to break the rules of our
society teachers should accept (or teach) violence, swearing, bullying,
insolence, thieving, &c? Or do you draw a line somewhere?

I draw a line where the science teacher teaches sciences, refuses to follow a
parent-sponsored curriculum where that doesn't match the rigour of the
subject, and demands pupil participation as a valued member of society and
fully prepared to participate in learning.

But then I was always a touch demanding ... ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Yes, I understand your point. However, it is assuming the scope of
science is defined in a certain way which does not allow for
alternatives.

It allows for all scientific alternatives. I really don't understand why you
are insisting that science teachers teach crap rather than science. And before
you tackle me on the description of ID, I'm talking about all the other stuff
that, in fairness, you must put on the curriculum if schools follow your idea.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It has been scrutinized and found entirely wanting.

On the basis of science as defined today and with the present state of
our knowledge.

Then come up with a better - or even just a different - basis of science.
Until you take the time to actually look at the problem your words have no
meaning as you clearly don't appreciate any of the effects of what we are
talking about.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
If it's the former, then I tend to agree with you, but organised
religion was not what I had in mind.

You clearly didn't have any of the matter under discussion 'in mind'. ;-(

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:26:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Yes, but its not the job of the science class to teach him that, any
more than he learns how to make nuclear weapons in the pottery class

Yes, I understand your point. However, it is assuming the scope of
science is defined in a certain way which does not allow for
alternatives.


Well you can redefine pottery to include nuclear weapons if you
like..but it seems a little odd.


OK. However why should being taught about science and how that works
be a necessity ( I do think that that is valid, BTW), while being
taught about other ideas not be?

I don't think it is a necessity, but it does turn out to be useful.

OK, but others may have a different view and it is a matter of
opinion.


Sure. But its not germane to the teaching of ID in science classes.

If you want to learn science, you go to science classes. What you don't
want is ID - which isn't science - cluttering them up.

You may feel that a country full of Drivels who read and believe and
take on trust, but do not understand, to be a good thing. That is your
opinion. I differ.


I do think lots of other ideas should be taught. I was exposed to
gazillions of them at school..all the way from Bishop Berkeley, via
Vance Packard, Jane Austen to Einstein..

well rounded toolkit I'd say.

However we did NOT study Jane Austen in RK, not Einstein in English
class, nor Vance Packard in the science labs..

I understand. However, I don't think that it has to remain that way,
necessarily.


But that is complete anarchy. Jesus in domestic science. Nuclear weapons
in pottery..why bother to have subjects at all? lets just discuss any
and every crackpot notion in every class, rather than it he cutely named
'liberal studies' that we had..

ID is best discussed in a philosophy or general studies type of arena,
because it isn't science. Its just dressed up that way to pretend to th
feeble minded that it is.

Once you allow discussion of non scientific theories AS SCIENCE, the
door is open to just about anything. The science of geomancy. Necromancy
for beginners. How to read the future from chicken entrails. Basic spell
casting.

Arguably these are all MORE scientific than ID...


Well that could go for anything from wife beating to heroin addiction
and cannibalism.

It could. The question is really who should the decision makers in
terms of the delivered content and the channels through which it is
delivered.


well we all know who the Creationists WANT it to be - a priest caste
with the handle on all knowledge which is spooned out to the faithful.

As it is, its a group political dynamic, and you vote for who runs the
schools.

If faith schools get to be the norm, I'll start one for basic satanism I
think.;-)



I am not for suppression debate on theological matters at all. I love it
as you can see. I am just utterly against those who would impose it and
deny all debate on it thereafter.


I understand. However, one could also think of a position where
people would be utterly against imposition of evolutionary science
presented as the truth and saying that their understandings are
irrelevant to it.


It's neither imposed nor presented as the truth. And many peoples
understandings of many other things are completely irrelevant to it.

What you know about e.g. spot welding is not germane to evolutionary theory.

Its your mistake, not mine, to think that just because the arguments of
ID seem plausible to you, and look to you like they are scientific, that
they actually are.

Science is there to teach accepted scientific theory. If its a bad
school and teacher, it may get presented as fat. If its a good school,
and mine was, very good, it gets presented as 'the best we have so far
come up with, it works, and here are the flaws we are still working on,
and oh, you do understand that we have had to make some assumptions
here..well the answers come out right, and we don't have any better
ways, so we will leave those assumptions flagged, and just get on with
the science'


I think you are wildly misled there. The ID and creationists are bending
theories to fit dogma.
That they may well be and I am not defending them. All that I have
said is that within their frame of reference, they believe that their
position is correct, just as the scientist does from within his.

I am not so sure that the ones who do the religious marketing in fact do
believe it at all. Its a naked struggle to dominate the world views of
the naive.

I tend to agree, but I would say that there is also marketing of
various concepts in science, although perhaps from a sincerely held
position.


Not in pure science, not really. In technology of course where there is
product to sell, its rife.

Sadly he who shouts the loudest and lies with the most
confidence usually wins that one. Look at our government.

Mmmmm....


What is not reasonable in either direction is for one to dismiss the
ideas of the other because they do not fall inside that frame of
reference.

What is reasonable is to dismiss the ideas of someone who is making a
false argument, even by their own alleged standards.

If it's by their alleged standards, then yes. If it's by your
standards then no. Well, you can dismiss them, but not on the same
basis as you could if it is from the premise of the other person.


If someone wants to present an idea _as a scientific theory_, then by
_their_ standards it has to meet the standards of any other scientific
theory.

What you are saying is essentially that you want to see science
redefined to accept what is not a scientific theory, by current meanings
of the word.

Thats the hinge pin of the whole issue. You are spouting the usual crap
that I have heard time and time again. That ID is a scientific theory.
It isn't.

The burden is on the ID'ers to conform, if they want to gain entry to
the scientific community. Not the other way around.

This is sophistry pure and simple. Either we throw away all rigour in
science, or we rigorously deny ID a place in science.

But the ID'ers want it both ways, they want the endorsement of the
rigour of the scientific process, but without the rigour that denies
them access to it.

Sorry. Can't do.



Ive talked with many of the Devout. They all share one thing in common,
they don't think or reason to well.

But that is in terms of your understanding of what reason means.


If you are going down that route, I give up.

YOU may think that some priest elite, and some book has a monopoly on
what is and what is not: I only have my own judgment and experience. I
stand by it.

When you come up with logical
contradictions they always retreat into 'well its a belief thing, man,
you either do or you don't, and if you do it just feels better'

When I pointed out that the average smack head says the same, only he
says 'smack' instead of 'believe' they didn't seem too pleased.

I don't suppose that they would. From their perspective this ia as
different, I suspect, as theirs is to yours.


Exactly, Because they have the unshakable righteousness of their
position to fall back on. Irrespective of any reason that may be brought
to bear.

All I can say is good luck, and pass my regards to the dinosaurs.



What they can't cope with is that when I say its possible to live an
entirely reasonable and comfortable life without believing in anything
at all much..they simply don't believe me :-)

Oh of course. It's not their experience. They derive their level of
comfort by believing in something, you derive yours by either
deliberately or implicitly not.

I don't derive any comfort from my beliefs or lack of them.
I learnt to live without comfort and self indulgence, thats all.
In the end, it proved to not be the most important thing in life.

I did not trade a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage...



Do you think that children should be taught how to inject heroin? How to
perform rape? Be subject to being shagged at age 9 because some section
of the population thinks its OK?

No I don't particularly, but I don't think that it's my decision
either since I don't have any school age children.

cop out


Well I happen to feel that being taught that religious belief is 'just
the same as science' is far more damaging than ANY of the above. Its a
total lie. And its very very dangerous.


I would agree with you that within the terms of the current definition
of science that that would be the case. However, I don't necessarily
think that that definition has to remain that way for all time.


There comes a point where it ceases to be science: If you want to
redefine it as investigation into crackpot undisproveable notions, fair
enough. Just don't call it science.


Darwinism isn't the truth, its a valid scientific hypothesis that hasn't
yet been falsified, and has no significant competitor.
That's fine, but is from the perspective of science.
Of COURSE it is..because there is not other point in Darwinism except
from the perspective of science.

I really do not see where you are coming from - unless you are just
trolling again.

I never troll. I can also appreciate that perhaps you don't
understand where I am coming from.


Its becoming clearer by the minute.

You have certainties that you favour over rational investigation. Fine,
but that isn't science.

It is simply that I am pointing out that "truths" that we hold dear,
be they religious or acceptance of the definitions and scope of
science should be subject to challenge.

That is what discovery is all about.

Oh really? I think not. There is perfectly respectable platform to
challenge the 'truths' of science, and that is the philosophy of science
in the limit, or the scientific community in the detail.

The scientific community does not hold Darwinism 'dear' either. Its
there to be challenged, expanded on or knocked down.

If you want truths that are held dear, you need a Sunday school mate.

Out here in real science land there is no such complacency. Just a lot
of hard work and a lot of thinking and a lot of testing.




I mean, should we examine the religious implications of a custard tart?

Teach Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance?

Do deep studies on the philosophy of masturbation?

Religion and science have (almost) nothing to do with each other.


That depends on your perspective on each of them and what they
include. If you prefer to see them in discrete and compartmentalised
ways, then that's fine. I don't, and see no reason why there can't
be elements of one in the other or overlaps.


Oh there can be, but there comes a limit.

one short course in the philosophy of science would sort out the issue.

As to why ID simply doesn't belong..but you simply won't accept that.

Science cannot afford to waste time on theories that go nowhere. That
never CAN go anywhere.

To do so is to cease to be a scientist



It has been scrutinized and found entirely wanting.

On the basis of science as defined today and with the present state of
our knowledge.

NO! On the basis of a fundamental logical and philosophical flaw.

You keep repeating this mantra as if by shouting it loud enough it will
become true.

ID is not and never can be science. Its a logical impossibility. Even if
it were true it would still NOT BE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

Don't humpty dumpty me..words have meanings, irrespective of what you
may want them to have.

You can redefine bathwater to include babies if you want, but it won;t
change the common meaning of the word., unless you do it by dogmatic decree.

Stop wasting your time. You cannot prove the existence of a God with
science.

Because science implicitly works outside if that basis.

Add God in, and you have to define Him..and that is no longer the God
you want..ineffable, omipotent etc..




However, as you said earlier, (to paraphrase) it is part of a battle
for the hearts and minds of the masses.

I see a similarity in that respect with some scientists and those who
take Darwinism verbatim and would wish to exclude alternatives.


Well you have fallen into the ID's false logic, incomplete understanding
and utter bull**** trap then.

I certainly haven't because I deliberately have not looked at what it
seeks to say.

well you certainly seem to be using all the standard false arguments,
all of which have been refuted endlessly. Perhaps its just that you are
singing from the same hymn sheet, and therefore have come to the same
erroneous conclusions?



Good luck to you. I suggest you become born again, give your life to
Jesus, and wait for your inevitable death without ever using your brain
again, secure in the knowledge that God doesn't want you to.


I haven't expressed any personal position or belief at all.


You have.

You are making the fatal mistake of assuming that anybody who suggests
that there might be alternatives and extensions to the current scope
and definition of science is in a completely different category where
thinking is excluded.


Not at all. You have as usual completely missed the point, and raised
the usual straw men.

That is not the case and in itself is adopting as much of a dogmatic
position, in the way that you have said it, as the people who you
accuse of having a dogmatic position of belief.


And that ad hominem, is precisely the sort of straw man you raise..
If you engage in debate, you have to at least ascribe to some form of
homage to Reason.

What you claim to be mere minor alterations to what science thinks,
would be in fact the complete end to rational inquiry.

That is sophistry, and the more you go on, the deep and more unpleasant
I suspect your motives to be.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:29:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

Teachers aren't acting as censors: they are acting to keep science
scientific. The whole act of teaching anything is in your terms
censorship, in that there is a defined curriculum and one does not
deviate from it too far.

Then the question becomes who defines the curriculum.

Indeed. and we know that there is a strong movement by the Creationists
to present ID as a 'valid scientific theory' and redefine the curriculum
so that pseudo science gets taught as science..we had enough of that
with Marxists dialectic thank you.



As I mentioned somewhere else, would it be OK to have e.g. a
_compulsory_ sermon by an atheist in every church in the country where
the ideas of a a Godless universe are promoted every single week to the
faithful?

A church is a different environment to a school.


Is it? are you sure?
I thought it was a place you went to learn and practice religion..like a
science class is a place you went to learn and practice science..

Now of course YOU may IMPLICITLY think that religion is of a different
order to science...

...well then get it the **** out of science classes. It doesn't belong.

Andy Hall wrote:

I have simply challenged the notion that science should have a fixed
scope for all time, especially when within it, entire ways of
describing things change dramatically.


Then it hasn't got a fixed scope for all time has it?

I can understand that people might be frightened by the thought of
that concept, but I'm not.

No..you are not. you would like to debase it I am sure to a mere crystal
gazing democracy where anyones ideas no matter how crackpot have equal
weight with anyone else's.

Sorry. That would not be science. There is an entry exam for science,
and the ultimate test is that it has to be useful and work. Even if it
predicts useless things, it still has to predict them accurately.
theories which do not lead to testable predictions are not, never have
been, and never can be part of science.

They may have merit, but they do no belong in science. Period. Asking me
to change that is tantamount to taking a chimpanzee, sticking it in the
White House and calling it a world leader. You COULD do it, but the
consequences would be dire.

As to who sets those standards..it is those whose bent lies in
developing the philosophy of science, and whose ideas gain the most
acceptance within the broad community of those who have, by dint of
passing THEIR exams, risen to positions of prominence in the scientific
community.

Unlike politics, where any arsehole can announce they know how to run te
country, and be believed enough to get elected.


I also don't think that the educators should be the only ones who
should define what goes into the curriculum. I think that parents
should have a strong input to that. Again, an educator might find
that threatening.


I am not an educator. For the purposes of this discussion you may call
me a student of comparative religion and as philosopher, of science partly.

BUT the point still stands. ID and similar theories are 'metaphysical'
Not science. They are suitable for the philosophy class, they don't
belong in the science class. That is simply not open to debate. Science
is what science defines itself to be..and as an outsider you do not get
to vote. If you do not like it, your choices are simple.

1/. debase science by political manipulation to the point where it is no
longer of any use, stop all technological and intellectual progress, and
go back to the medieval mindset.

2/. Accept that metaphysical ideas belong outside of the science class
and take them there and indeed lobby for more philosophy and religious
discussion.

3/. Shut the **** up and accept things the way they are.

I'll support you on 2/. and 3/. but never on 1/.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
If its a good school, and mine was, very good, it gets presented as 'the
best we have so far come up with, it works, and here are the flaws we are
still working on, and oh, you do understand that we have had to make some
assumptions here..well the answers come out right, and we don't have any
better ways, so we will leave those assumptions flagged, and just get on
with the science'

Good school - and good pupils. ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I'm clearly allowed to tell the kids that stepping off a 20 foot ladder on
the 29th February is quite safe because the rays emanating from the
Earth's second moon Whoolzibitz reduce gravity every fourth year. It must
be true because it's part of science according to Andy Hall.

That is making rather light of a serious point about a principle of what
the basis should be for inclusion in a subject area.

No it bloody well isn't! That's *exactly* what you have signed up for. That is
*your* work. If you don't like it - if you seriously don't like it - then you
had better read this thread again - because *you* are saying that that (and
far worse) is entirely acceptable.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:50:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Change those and we aren't living in a particularly recognizable world.
On that broad set of axioms, a creationist could suggest God to be the
reason (when expressed in his terms).

Indeed. And at that point science ceases to be a reasonable activity at all.

As defined from a current scientific viewpoint. A creationist may
believe that his position is entirely reasonable, as indeed might two
scientists with what to them appear to be completely reasonable
positions but quite different.


You have again misunderstood the term 'reasonable'

I meant it in its pure sense. of being analytic by means of reason.

Science is the exercise of reason, applied to the observed world around
us. For the purposes of reducing its complexity to allow predictability
of phenomena.

Just stuffing a blanket term 'God' over everything at once stifles any
exercise of the analytic. There is nothing more to be said. There is no
argument, no investigation, for WHO CAN UNDERSTAND THE WILL OF GOD?

The short answer is that scientists say that largely, if all this is the
will of God, they have, and they gave done it by ignoring Him.

Because only by pretending - if you must - that god plays little or no
part in the way the world works, have we been able to actually proceed
at all.

I haven't seen too many advances made by the Church in terms of anything
at all since they gave up the monopoly on writing, reading, mining,
brewing agriculture and all the other useful things they used to do.

Once the KNOWLEDGE was out, in the profane world, indeed we moved along
MUCH faster.



Herein lies the problem. How inclusive or exclusive should
definitions be? If the definition is to broad, it allows in things
that you might prefer not to see included. Too narrow, and you can be
accused of not being scientific (i.e. open to new theories).

You have already defined how inclusive. If you simply deny the axioms on
which science is based, you deny all validity to science.

I haven't. All I have said is that the definitions of science should
of themselves be subject to scrutiny and change.


They are...but they cannot be bent to include ID.

You may feel that they can. I assure you that they cannot.

They creaked at Sheldrake..I personally think he is just about in the
realms of science still..others don't.



Philosophically, this is a valid metaphysical perspective, but to claim
that its science is completely wrong.

Of course, and I haven't claimed that.

Science doesn't deny the existence of A God, it merely points out that
an approach based on the irrelevance* of a god, is demonstrably
_effective_.

* in a strict technical sense. The concept of God, if you like, appears
on both sides of the equation, and can therefore be canceled out. Or to
put it another way, science analyzes the world orthogonally to God,
because God can't be measured and pinned down, so he is simply ignored.

This then depends on the extent and terms of the experiment and what
one is setting out to discover.

No. God is undefined. That's the problem. God cannot be measured,
touched tasted or even sensed in a comprehensive way..by enough people
to actually bring the concept INTO the world in which science is active.
In a sense the renaissance scientists and philosophers studied the bits
of what they thought were gods creations, and found they could deduce an
underlying pattern, and they called it science.

Bit by bit, they stopped thinking of it as gods creation, not because
they ceased to be religious men, but simply because it wasn't germane to
what they were doing.

It remained in three separate ways implicit in the modern mind..

- as the philosophical 'god of the gaps' - the prime cause in a causal
universe..as a way to name something that had no name..to explain the
(currently) inexplicable.

- as a curious artifact of the way the mind seems to work, in that we
treat the world implicitly (and science is the purest form of that) AS
IF we were disembodied intelligences on another plane of existence,
observing the world without actually taking part in it, other than to
measure it.

- as a curious 'personal guardian angel' with whom we can have
conversation, and who will guide us through life.

Now the first and second definitions are entirely metaphysical. They do
not apply to science, because that takes them as read, in the second
place, and as irrelevant, in the first.

The third aspect is more amenable to scientific inquiry, and indeed has
much to recommend it. Though whether it is a philosophical,
psychological, or biophysical study is not really clear..

If you like science is concerned with the predictability of the world.
God, being ineffable almighty and traditionally capricious, is not
subject to analysis. Fortunately divine intervention in most science
seems demonstrably rare.

You already said that "science science analyzes the world orthogonally
to God, because God can't be measured and pinned down, so he is simply
ignored."

If something is ignored because it can't be analysed within the
current scope of science, how can one say whether it is or isn't
relevent?


Very easily.

If I want to measure a small weight, on a beam scale whose weight is
very much larger than the weights I want to measure, I carefully balance
it first..so that its won weight is canceled out. The weight then
becomes irrelevant to the experiment.

By concentrating on the bits of the world that are as far as we can tell
entirely godless, that are amenable to rational inquiry, we get what we
want without having to bother with god at all.

This is far more safe and certain - i.,e. we tend to test bits of stone
metal and wood, and build a bridge over a river, rather than say three
hail Mary's and jump off the bank..because experience has shown us that
the godless approach works more reliably.

The trouble with God, is that you can't trust him. One day he'll build
you an ark that can magically take every single species off of a billion
square miles in the twinkling of an eye, the next he won't even let you
install Linux properly.

If you want to call science the analysis and use of the godless aspects
of the Universe, I won't stand in your way..:-)

Science aims to predict. God cannot be predicted. Therefore where chaos
reigns and God Incarnate stalks the (quantum?) universe, we tend not to go.



You might say that science concerns itself strictly with those things
that God has seen fit to leave to Nature to handle in a reductive way.

Equally, who is to say that the things that occur within the framework
that people can understand through the current concepts of science are
not part of a Grand Plan? That is why I made the point that a belief
in Divine Guidance is not incompatible with what is observed through
science.



Fine. By all means call it a grand plan. It changes nothing in science
if you do that. Its IRRELEVANT.

All I am saying is that science has learnt to rely on what works, and
divine guidance doesn't. Least ways I've never built a computer based on
that principle.

Time and time again you confuse a metaphysical proposition with a
scientific hypothesis.

Gods existence or not, as the religious cults define Him, is not a
scientific proposition,. Its a metaphysical one. Its simply not part of
science to explore metaphysics, because science doesn't work in that realm.

Once we step into the ocean, a bicycle is not a lot of use...we MAY be
surrounded by deep seas..but science is about nailing down the dry land.

And since we have very few boats apart from those in our imagination,
scientists are forced to stay there..because imagination that in;
confirmed or refuted by actual tests is not science.


What irks the Creationists, is that the set of all things that science
seems not to be able to pin down, seems to be rather small, and getting
smaller. In short, the prime Heresy that frighten the faithful, is that
more and more people see no particular reason to invoke a Deus ex Machina..

I have had the same blank response from all of these people..'you cannot
live without Faith (I can) ..you must believe in something (I
don't)..How do you explain all the things you cannot explain? (I don't
even attempt to mostly)..they have been led to understand that Science
is a Faith similar to theirs, but based on antithetical principles..in
fact you are coming precisely from this direction..

Actually I'm not. I haven't said where I stand on this and am not
going to. I am simply pointing out that each of these views the other
with suspicion, principally because of a lack of understanding of the
other's position and preconceived ideas of mutual exclusivity.



You have said where you stand, at least for the purposes of this discussion.

I don't view the Creationists with suspicion, it is total abject alarm.
They want to destroy the modern world and take us back a millennium. And
install a theocratic feudal society. Just like the fundamental Islamists.

Because only in such a world do their ideas have any relevance
whatsoever. They want a world where belief is relative, where reason
does not uncover any truth, where dogma and faith are the tools used to
condition mens minds not into a challenge to uncover more knowledge, but
to lock all such away in priestly monasteries, far from the profane
faithful.

They KNOW that the free interchange of ideas, and rational discussion,
and the rigour of the scientific process is their greatest enemy, just
as we who espouse such, know that closed dogmatic interpretations
according to some scripture is ours.

Our knowledge leads us to believe that to espouse their way of thinking
would be the death of civilization as we know it, and probably result in
species extinction of man, through failing to live up to Darwinian
principles..they know that they are fighting a last ditch battle for the
hearts and minds of the simple folk, who are altogether too well
educated to fall for their snake oil..

They want a world ruled by fear and faith. We want a world rejoicing in
freedom and exploration.





What they cannot accept is that science is not ultimately based on faith
at all, but on observations...the only Faith involved if any is involved
is in the act of perceiving the universe as we do, and in our ability to
reduce it to some form of simpler MECHANISMS that lie behind it. Not
Intelligences. This is only done because it seems to WORK. NOT because
it 'seems reasonable' or 'it must be so'..

What you SHOULD realize is that ultimately this is what religion was as
well..only at some point around the time of Paul of Tarsus did religion
cease to be an exploration of the world, and become a political tool of
civilization, a dogmatically enforced single view that originally
stifled dissent, and brought political stability, but now stifles
progress, and brings political instability..


That depends on whether you are talking about organised religion
(which could be described in the same contexts as political parties on
a grand scale) or what an individual might believe for themselves on
an unencumbered basis.

If it's the former, then I tend to agree with you, but organised
religion was not what I had in mind.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
1/. debase science by political manipulation to the point where it is no
longer of any use, stop all technological and intellectual progress, and
go back to the medieval mindset.

I've been thinking about this. I'm afraid that it's worse than you imagine;
under Andy's proposal the technology of stone-age tools would be impossible
and I doubt if many of the advances made by many mammals would work anymore.

Being an amoeba might still be possible ;-(

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:13:42 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:12:28 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Quite possibly. However I don't think that it ultimately stands up
simply because the scope is limited by the self referential nature.

OK. You or a child of yours has a potentially fatal disease that could be
tackled with the right research and you have 50 million GBP to give to
people who can conduct that research. Do you give the money to people you
know will follow scientific principles in their research or people who
will accept any standard that will come up with what they had decided was
the answer before they even bothered to look at the problem?

What I would or wouldn't do doesn't really matter here.

It doesn't. Your idea of science is wrong and it won't change in the way you
suggest (thank god!).

It may or it may not. I am simply pointing out that there is no
reason why it shouldn't or couldn't. Whether I think that it is
going to or even likely to is another matter entirely.


But your decision matters for this discussion. Are you seriously suggesting
that you are undecided.


No, I am simply suggesting that I am not going to say what I would
decide to do because that is only my perspective. I am looking at
possibilities rather than necessarily rejecting them.


[Snip]

Moreover, you are suggesting that the alternative decided on the answer
before looking at the problem. In the scientific context, that might be
true, but in the context of those arriving at the answer through what might
be a different approach it could be quite valid.

I don't think you're quite getting the problem. The creationists are demanding
equal time for their religious ideas to be presented as science by science
teachers in science lessons in the USA where it is forbidden to teach RE in
schools. They are also making headway in some schools in the UK (and
elsewhere). They want to teach your kids and they want to present ID as
science to your kids and the 'science' they want to present is their literal
interpretation of Genesis.

That's a different matter entirely, and that is what takes us into the
realms of how much air time there should be and who makes the
decisions on curriculum content.

I deliberately have not gone into the issue of whether I personally
feel that ID , creationism or evolution have more or less merit.

However, if the former two were to be taught in schools under the
umbrella of science, it would be entirely reasonable to test them
under current scientific principles as part of that education. It
would also be reasonable to test evolution under the principles of RE.



Now. My question. Where do *you* put your money?

That's the enigma isn't it?

As you know from previous threads, I am very much a believer in the
scope and aspirations of the individual as opposed to wanting to allow
any organisation (whatever it is) to organise my life and thoughts for
me.

I also meet a lot of people from and in different countries and
different cultures.

Taking these things together means that I am exposed to a broad range
of ideas and values.

I prefer to acknowledge those as long as the person holds them
sincerely, whether or not I accept them for myself.

I also prefer to have an analytical view of things and in some
respects that makes life easier. However, I also will not let that
prevent me from thinking outside the box on occasions and questionning
the very basis of the analysis. That comes naturally from having an
individualistic view of things rather than necessarily accepting what
is handed out.

This may appear to be a position of self conflict, but it works well
for me and does not cause me stress.




--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:13:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


Two things here.

Who is to say that the boundaries of what science should or should not
include should remain fixed.


No idea, since no one is saying that at all.

It is a loaded view to say that ideas outside of that are "crackpot".
You may think that and I may think that, but others don't.

Crackpot is pejorative: Let's just say that ideas that fail to meet
Poppers criteria are simply 'not science'


Not science as currently defined.



Looked at in a different way, this is very similar to saying that
somebody adhering to my affiliation is OK (even though I might
disagree slightly) but somebody whose ideas differ markedly is a
crackpot.

No: this is not an affiliation. Science is not a belief system.

There are differences of opinion between scientists on many subjects
within the current realms of science.


I wish you would stop long enough to actually listen to the philosophy
of science. It makes it quite clear that certain classes of ideas are
outside the remit of science. No one denies their validity at that
level: What is denied is their place inside Science.

Popper was ultimately quite clear on this point: A theory that cannot be
falsified is not a scientific theory.

Yes I am aware of this - in essence the advancement of knowledge being
an evolutionary process.

However, while I can appreciate the principle of falsifiability, which
is an interesting one, it doesn't really address the basis on which
something is considered to be falsified.


Aha! NOW you get the point about what
makes a truly crackpot theory. No matter what the outcome of any
experiment, the thesis remains unchallengeable.

This depends on the basis under which it is challenged.




Popper spent a lot of time, and care, understanding this point
completely. In the end, he came to the conclusion that this rendered
crackpot theories as demonstrably unscientific, not because they were
believed to be false, but because they added nothing we didn't know
already. Unfortunately they rendered a lot of so called rational
scientific theories - particularly political and psychological theories
- Freud's for one - as unscientific too.

If you like, crackpot theories replace a possibly analyzable
uncertainty, with a completely unanalyzable certainty.

This again depends on the basis used for the analysis. Because
something can't be analysed using a certain set of predefined criteria
and a conclusion drawn in one direction or another, does not mean that
there might not be new criteria available in the future or that the
original set of predefined criteria were the correct ones to use.

This has value in
calming peoples fears, but adds nothing to our understanding.

This depends on what a person's criteria are for understanding.


From the
rational atheists perspective, it is a psychological process. Not Truth
as such..the only scientific interest is to note that belief is
something un disproveable, has a distinct effect on the Believers.


Fine, so you have described a situation where a rational atheist
explains someone else's belief as a psychological. However it still
assumes a set of predefined criteria for measurement.









--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:18:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

I don't think you're quite getting the problem. The creationists are demanding
equal time for their religious ideas to be presented as science by science
teachers in science lessons in the USA where it is forbidden to teach RE in
schools.

Th answer would seem to be to introduce comparative religion into the
curriculum.


That would be entirely reasonable, and one could argue that evolution
should be presented as part of that as well as in the scientific
idiom.


They are also making headway in some schools in the UK (and
elsewhere). They want to teach your kids and they want to present ID as
science to your kids and the 'science' they want to present is their literal
interpretation of Genesis.

Indeed.

Now. My question. Where do *you* put your money?


Currently, copper futures..even with speedfit plastic..:-)

I wonder if copper is transmutable to gold ;-)


--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It would also be reasonable to test evolution under the principles of RE.

Two questions:

why?
what principles?

RE is descriptive of the religious ideas that people believe and the reasons
they give for those beliefs + reaction and consequencies. Where does evolution
fit in?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
This may appear to be a position of self conflict, but it works well
for me and does not cause me stress.

You are still dependent upon others who make the decisions that you opt out of
making. There could be a word for it ...

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:48:40 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

re Andy

I really do not see where you are coming from - unless you are just
trolling again.

Devils advocate or closet creationist?


In this case, definitely devil's advocate. That is why I have tried
to get across the notion that a view of evolution within a scientific
context (as currently defined) that does not want to allow alternative
views into its space and some of whose adherents are intolerant of
those, has similarity with some of the less attractive facets of
organised religion.

This is not in terms of frames of reference but because of the
exclusive and intolerant aspects of the way that they are presented.



--

..andy