In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

Very true. It will always be so. That's why science has strength in dealing
with scientific questions and religion is infinitely weak in answering those
same questions. And vice versa.

--
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 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.

Science should be intolerant. It's a quality assurance scheme.

--
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 10:20:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

I have and continue to look at issues very carefully indeed. There
is certainly not a lack of being bothered. Don't confuse the
questions that I have raised as being anything to do with any personal
position. You are quite wide of the mark.

The point where reason ends and faith begins depends depends, as far
as I am concerned, on the individual and their perspective of what is
reasonable and what is not.




--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:21:58 +0000, Phil Young
wrote:

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.


You have a point here. However, we have already gone through the
mechanisms involved in apparent 109% boiler efficiency; and the
explanations are pretty clear.

I'm not that interested in cars.


--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:

Even more.

Andy, I think you need to stop digging. NP and John have given some
superb reasoning for their viewpoints, I feel that you are failing to do
so.

Regards
Capitol

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:03:47 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Within the currently understood definition, methods and scope of
science. There is no reason that that might not change in the future.

If science were to change to be able to encompass the ideas of ID it could not
be science.

It could not be science as currently defined.

Worse - we would be incapable of any intellectual development.
To
include ID science would have to accept any idea as accepted science.

Accepted by who?

Technology, medicine, research, &c would be unable to proceed as any
half-baked guess - or deliberately misleading statement - would be required to
be accepted alongside the results of any carefully prepared experiment. It
would be true science that carbon monoxide was a killer, and beneficial to
health, was lighter than air, and heavier than air, was explosive, and not
explosive - and no way to find what was 'real' science and what was the
ramblings of idiots.

I prefer one - very strict - definition of science.

That's fine but it is limiting the scope. In doing so, you apply a
set of rules by which an idea may or may not be considered valid.

I'm not particularly interested in where ID fits into that, other than
to say that taking a position that such a set of rules should define
or not define what is "real" and what is not has a very similar ring
to the notion promoted by organised religion that its ideas are the
ultimate truth to the exclusion of others.

You can argue that the rules are quite different, and of course they
are. However, each is arguing that it is right and the other is not
based on its set of rules.

That being the case, one should take a step back and start asking
about the basis of the rules and the criteria.

It is, of course, very difficult to do that and could be in the realms
of questions like "What happened before the dawn of the universe
(whatever the mechanism might be)?" and "God created man, who created
God?"; although is probably not as difficult as those questions.



--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:04:50 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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 scrutinised. It fails every single test. It's not science.


It's not science as you understand it.

This is not to say that I think or don't think that there is or isn't
any validity in ID at all.


It surprises me when on the one hand people accuse the ID protagonists
of dogma; but then say, quite dogmatically that it has been
scrutinised and fails all the tests.

This presupposes that the tests are appropriate and are not extensible
or changeable over time.

I think that that is a big supposition.



--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:

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


Careful. This attitude is getting dangerously close to the Brown
viewpoint of fiscal rectitude!

Regards
Capitol

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:51:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Thus, if each looks at the other, it sees shortcomings in it.

No. Science does not look at religion and find shortcomings. Science accepts
that religion is of a different order. One particular religious group looks at
one area of science and decides that it has a rivalling scientific explanation
- but fails to follow any of the requirements that might allow it to be
accepted as a science.

That's fine and large, but what if said religious group does not
accept the criteria and requirements that define it as that?

You can of course cry foul and argue that the criteria and
requirements are fixed in order to be a science.

I'm simply raising, without taking sides, the question of "are they?".







--

..andy

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:47:46 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Given that situation, I think that it should not exclude ideas that
not only go beyond its current understanding, but also that it should
not restrict its frame of reference such that they are excluded.

Then expect to die a rather horrible death at some future pandemic. I can
assure you that creationist thinking will not help one iota; understanding
evolution might.


You seem very sure about that position with an almost religious zeal.

That's your prerogative.

I prefer not to definitively exclude the possibilities of either.


--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:30:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.


Again, I have not said whether I think that this is appropriate or
not; only that what is considered to be science (in terms of
definitions) should also be subject to review.




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..

There is an issue of one being optional and the other not.



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

I was not discussing a comparison between science and organised
religion.



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

This is my point. You are making this comment from the perspective
that it doesn't belong because the criteria and definitions don't
match.

I'm questioning the assertion that these should be a fixed thing and
preclude other ideas from being discussed and considered according to
a number of different frameworks.


--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:16:26 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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?

Personally I do, but that is not the point being made. My own (very
broad because there are loads of exceptions) guideline is that one
should have the freedom to do whatever one wants provided that it
doesn't affect the same freedom of others. Obviously that is
simplistic, but can be applied to a broad range of issues. Clearly,
if applied to your shopping list above, for me, all would fail.

I didn't say that parents should control what is on the curriculum any
more than teachers should. It should be an agreement between them,
possibly involving others as well.



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 ... ;-)

The notion or not of "society" is another issue, but I'll leave it
aside.

Actually, I don't think that your position is unreasonable at all. If
you don't believe that the content of what you teach is correct, then
you shouldn't do it.




--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:47:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

I haven't suggested that at all. All that I have suggested is the
possibility that the rules for the definition of science could change
over time just as some of the aspects within its frameworks have.



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.

That all assumes that the basis, tests and definitions are complete
and could never possibly change. I think that that is a very big
assumption.



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.

That's already been done....



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.

Science is almost as full of charlatans as any other field, including
politics. Some aspects, have a highly politicised dimension.




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.

That is only true if you consider the terms and definitions of science
to be fixed and complete for all time.


Science
is what science defines itself to be..and as an outsider you do not get
to vote.

This sounds very similar to the definition of an organised religion.


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/.



4/ Consider the possibility that the definitions of science and
metaphysics may not be completely correct and complete as they are
today and could be different in the future.


--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:37:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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 ;-(


I don't know how you work that one out. I haven't proposed anything.
Rather, you have drawn conclusions that assume that I have a specific
position on issues with which you differ. You are leading yourself
up the garden path on that one by making the fatal assumption that
where I am raising a question about something that I disagree with the
status quo.

It's perfectly reasonable to raise a question about something for
others to consider, even if one already has one's own ideas or even
firm conclusions.

I am not suggesting the debasing of science. Far from it. I am
simply raising the question as to whether or not it should be open, in
terms of definition, to extension and modification over time.


--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:23:27 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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'. ;-(


I did, you know.



--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:36:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

OK, I understand. However, on that basis a creationist may also say
that he is dealing with predictability. It may not be on the same set
of tests, admittedly, but then who is to say what the tests should and
shouldn't be?



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?

I can see what you are saying, and why you would say that stuffing a
blanket term of 'God' as you put it, could stifle further thought. I
know of people that take that view.

However, I don't think that a belief or not in God (or a god etc.)
*has* to be incompatible with thought and analysis.



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.

That is only true if you are taking the position that considering the
possibility (to the extent of little up to complete acceptance)
prevents thought, investigation and development.

I certainly think that that accusation can be levelled against some or
all organised religions at one point or another in time - for some
perhaps a lot of the time.

However, if an individual considers the issues and takes a position
for himself, then I think that that is quite a different matter.




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.

This again relates to the point of organised religion, not individual
position and belief.




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.

I already said that I don't have an opinion one way or the other on
ID; and have also explained the basis under which I was raising the
questions.





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


OK. In that sense, science isn't an exact science. It does take
time, even within the scientific realm for ideas to be accepted and
replaced (or not). Inevitably at the edges, the question is and
should be asked, "does this count as science or not?", and on that,
views will vary.




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.

That is true in terms of the current state of understanding and with
the measurement methods used.

It may be that it will always be true. However, I am not sure about
that either way, and therefore I also have to ask the questions about
the definitions and methods of measurement insofar as they apply to
other areas.


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..

This is a convenient compartmentalisation that suits the scientist and
metaphysicist.

I would consider them as one possible way of describing things, but
would not let it prevent me wondering whether there are other ways to
do so.





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.

Exactly my point. It is safe and certain (as far as we can tell).

That does not provide licence to disregard what is not safe and
certain. Had we done that, we would not have progressed as you put it
earlier.


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.

That's because you didn't believe in the relevance of penguins in the
equation..... :-)



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

I hadn't thought about it in those terms.


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


God would appear not to be able to be predicted based on the current
state of our knowledge. I wouldn't be more definitive than that.

I didn't say that this was a comfortable area of thinking.





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.

I disagree. It could be highly relevant depending on what you think
the scope and methodologies of science are or have the possibility to
become.




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.

I don't see science and divine guidance as necessarily having to be
mutually exclusive.


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

No I am not. I am raising the question as to whether the definitions
of these necessarily have to be the only way to describe the issues at
hand.



Gods existence or not, as the religious cults define Him, is not a
scientific proposition,.

Who said anything about God having to be defined by religious cults or
anything else?


Its a metaphysical one. Its simply not part of
science to explore metaphysics, because science doesn't work in that realm.

According to the current definitions of these.



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.

But is the dry land always of fixed size? To extend the analogy, it is
possible for the boundaries to be changed under our control and beyond
our control.


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.


Who says that our fleet has to remain the same size, or that the type
of boats and navigational instruments on them can't change?



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 haven't at all in the way that you are suggesting.


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.

I haven't said either way whether I do or do not take a creationist
position. That is not relevant to the discussion despite the best
efforts of others to try and pigeonhole me.

On the other hand if you were to ask me whether I thought that
organised religions are deleterious in the way that you have just
described, I would agree with you but perhaps not to the extent of
being alarmed about it.




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..

In which case, why are you alarmed by it?

Either it's a threat as you describe, or it's not.


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


So do I, which is why I have been explicit on what I think about
organised religion.

However, what an individual chooses to accept (and that includes that
which is backed with analysis under current scientific principles)
should be a matter for him.

In the same way that you have said that creationists (implication
being an organised group?) should not be allowed to put the clock back
a millenium; I think that science should not preclude the possibility
(to simplify) of creation (in the Genesis sense) at one of the
spectrum, through divine intervention in nature in the middle, to
progression without divine intervention at all at the other.






--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:36:44 +0000, Capitol
wrote:



Andy Hall wrote:

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


Careful. This attitude is getting dangerously close to the Brown
viewpoint of fiscal rectitude!



Meaning rectitude as related to the rectum?


--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:03:47 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Within the currently understood definition, methods and scope of
science. There is no reason that that might not change in the future.

If science were to change to be able to encompass the ideas of ID it could
not be science.

It could not be science as currently defined.

It could not be science. We are repeating this and you are acting the fool.
Science must have means of weeding out ideas that don't match with reality or
it isn't science. You're asking to accept any idea as science. You're a fool.

Worse - we would be incapable of any intellectual development. To include
ID science would have to accept any idea as accepted science.

Accepted by who?

Scientists today, technologists and philosophers before that, craftsmen and
wise people in the beginning. Those who learn and understand - and are then
capable of making sense of the world and materials.

Technology, medicine, research, &c would be unable to proceed as any
half-baked guess - or deliberately misleading statement - would be
required to be accepted alongside the results of any carefully prepared
experiment. It would be true science that carbon monoxide was a killer,
and beneficial to health, was lighter than air, and heavier than air, was
explosive, and not explosive - and no way to find what was 'real' science
and what was the ramblings of idiots.

I prefer one - very strict - definition of science.

That's fine but it is limiting the scope. In doing so, you apply a set of
rules by which an idea may or may not be considered valid.

A scientific idea.

[Snip]

That being the case

That is not the case. The case is nowhere near where you put t. Stop trying to
be a philosopher - you can't make it. If you want to discuss further then read
up on what is actually happening. Find out what science is and find out what
the creationists are trying to do.

[Snip]

--
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 01:04:50 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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 scrutinised. It fails every single test. It's not science.

It's not science as you understand it.

It's not science. Take away observation, discussion, experimentation,
prediction, and changing ideas in the light of experimental results and what
you are left with cannot possibly be science. That's what you are defending -
science being still science once you have removed eerything that makes it
science.

This is not to say that I think or don't think that there is or isn't
any validity in ID at all.
And there is just as much (ie none) validity in your argument.

It surprises me when on the one hand people accuse the ID protagonists
of dogma; but then say, quite dogmatically that it has been
scrutinised and fails all the tests.

This presupposes that the tests are appropriate and are not extensible
or changeable over time.

I think that that is a big supposition.

Crap. We are not talking about the tests being appropriate; we are talking
about removing them altogether. If you haven't appreciated that there is a
slight difference there then you are failing to learn anything.

--
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 15:25:41 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

I haven't at all. You have attempted to apply a ridiculous and
extreme set of examples to something that was simply raised as
questioning a set of scopes and frames of reference.

If you want to extrapolate what I actually said, then that is a matter
for you. All that I did was to raise the possibility and question
that the definitions and scope of science may not remain the same for
all time.

If one accepts that they could be open to change, then it does open
the possibility of other subject matter being included.
If that is the case, then in turn, the question is raised over what
and on what basis that should be and who the decision makers should
be.


What I did not say or even imply, but which you have interpreted as
what you thought I said, was that this means that such change (if it
were to occur) could or should be limitless.

On that basis you floated a number of examples taken to extreme.

You also tried to draw me out on where I stand on creationism and on
ID. I told you that I had no position either way on ID and that I
wasn't going to discuss my views on creationism because it wasn't
really relevant.





--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:53:17 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

Very true. It will always be so. That's why science has strength in dealing
with scientific questions and religion is infinitely weak in answering those
same questions. And vice versa.

Possibly, although it does depend on one's understanding of the word
'religion'. That is why I split out the organised aspect of it
which I see as essentially negative, from the less tangible aspects
which I think are a matter for the individual.




--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:27:43 +0000, Capitol
wrote:



Andy Hall wrote:

Even more.

Andy, I think you need to stop digging. NP and John have given some
superb reasoning for their viewpoints, I feel that you are failing to do
so.


Sorry, but I don't regard myself as digging at all.

I have only sought to raise the question of whether the boundaries of
science are and always will be unchangeable, and whether the
containers of science, metaphysics etc. are as well defined as some
people would like to think.

If you hold the position that these are solid boundaries and will
always remain so, then of course your reasoning appears at first sight
to be very good.

On the other hand if you think as I do that there *could* be (not that
there are) changes and/or less distinct compartmentalisations - and I
didn't suggest any extent or timescale - then there are a substantial
number of implications, only some of which have been mentioned.



--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:45:11 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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?

The answer to this one depends on what is meant by religion. It has
different meanings for different people as to what it describes.


To be more specific about what I had in mind:

If one focusses purely on beliefs and reasons for beliefs and where
they have come from rather than practices and rituals, then I think
that one could compare a number of faiths and what they have to say
about (in simple terms) how we arrived here with how evolution treats
the subject.

On that basis, I think that one could highlight in side by side
comparisons what the frames of reference are as well.



--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:47:21 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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 ...


Who said that I was opting out of making decisions?

I'm simply not telling you what they are for me.

So, no, I am not a militant apathetic.


--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:32:04 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:



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.

Science should be intolerant. It's a quality assurance scheme.

I don't know if you have ever dealt with QA people in the industrial
sense, but they seem to go on courses on how to delight their
customers.

If you are intolerant, how do you do that?



--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:37:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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 ;-(

I don't know how you work that one out. I haven't proposed anything.

That's what you thought. You suggested that it might be OK to change the basic
requirements for something to be accepted as a valid scientific theory. In
fact you suggested that all requirements be dropped. That has a rather extreme
effect on our knowledge base.

Rather, you have drawn conclusions that assume that I have a specific
position on issues with which you differ.

It's a certain conclusion from your proposals. You were warned.



[Snip]

--
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:
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.

Science is almost as full of charlatans as any other field, including
politics. Some aspects, have a highly politicised dimension.

Charlatans in science are confronted by fellow scientists. In any case it's
science itself that you are attacking - not scientists.

--
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 15:25:41 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

I haven't at all. You have attempted to apply a ridiculous and extreme
set of examples to something that was simply raised as questioning a set of
scopes and frames of reference.

In your ignorance you made extreme proposals. That you were unaware of your
actions is clear but, as you were also clearly warned, you have to take
responsibility for the ridiculous and extreme example.

What I did not say or even imply, but which you have interpreted as what
you thought I said, was that this means that such change (if it were to
occur) could or should be limitless.

Your sole example makes it limitless.

--
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:
OK, I understand. However, on that basis a creationist may also say
that he is dealing with predictability. It may not be on the same set
of tests, admittedly, but then who is to say what the tests should and
shouldn't be?

So if I bet on Red Rum winning the Grand National how do you test if my
prediction is correct?

--
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:
However, if an individual considers the issues and takes a position
for himself, then I think that that is quite a different matter.

You're weaseling out. I don't blame you - but the whole of this thread is
about a group of people trying to hijack science lessons in order to promote
their own religious ideas.

--
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 14:19:18 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

By implication based on what falls within the current boundaries and
definitions of science.

I really don't understand why you
are insisting that science teachers teach crap rather than science.

I'm not. It depends first of all on whether you consider the
boundaries of science to be fixed for all time in the way that they
are today.

How would you deal with the situation where there are a number of
theories within the currently understood realm of science, but where
there is one which you personally believe is *the* one and another you
believe to be crap?

Would you (or even could you) treat them all equally?


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.

--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
They creaked at Sheldrake..I personally think he is just about in the
realms of science still..others don't.

OK. In that sense, science isn't an exact science. It does take
time, even within the scientific realm for ideas to be accepted and
replaced (or not). Inevitably at the edges, the question is and
should be asked, "does this count as science or not?", and on that,
views will vary.

Yes. And there will be scientific ideas that aren't clear and have a number of
competing suggestions - and others that are (in their generality) so clear
that everyday language would call them 'certain' 'proved' or simply 'true'. I
gave a list earlier.

--
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:
In the same way that you have said that creationists (implication
being an organised group?) should not be allowed to put the clock back
a millenium; I think that science should not preclude the possibility
(to simplify) of creation (in the Genesis sense) at one of the
spectrum, through divine intervention in nature in the middle, to
progression without divine intervention at all at the other.

You are confused. If you wish to clarify this paragraph then I'll give you an
answer. It will include a reading list and you will have to promise that you
will do some private research before returning to the discussion. Darwin spent
a (very productive) solid 22 years of research between the initial ideas for
natural selection and publishing On the Origin of Species.
And that's the first book on the list. It's eminently readable and contains
some of the best prose in the English language - and much better than his
grandfather's poetry! ;-)

--
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 14:22:19 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

I don't need to do that. All that I have done is to question the
notion of whether the basis of science is complete and correct for all
time. One can accept that possibility or not.

There are a myriad of possible consequences, depending on the area and
the extent of such a change.

The effects do not become known unless or until the change is made and
there is no point in doing that for the sake of it.

I was looking at this from the opposite direction.

If one says that something has been scrutinised and found wanting, as
was said earlier, then the implication is that either it failed a
known test, that there wasn't a test at all that we know about today,
or that a test that might have been carried out was not permitted
within the current framework of science. There may be others.

What happens if a new test or method is discovered that lends
credibility to a phenomenon that could not be explained or tested
before? Existing branches of science are changed or more are added.

We have already talked about things that are at or possibly over the
edges of where science is today. They may later be included or
discounted.








--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:26:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.



I don't see that as the same thing at all.



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.

I would phrase it in a different way.

If you want to learn science as it is defined in the curriculum today,
you go to science classes.

You consider that ID isn't science and therefore don't think that it
should be in science classes.

I don't know because I haven't looked at it, so I am not taking sides.

The proponents believe, that according to their definitions, it is
science and should be included.

Now what?








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.

That's another matter entirely :-)


I haven't expressed a personal position on whether I think that
reading/believing/trusting is good or bad. However, I don't think
that if somebody treats issues in that way that one can say that it
excludes understanding, only that it is not understanding in the way
that you see it.

I didn't say either that I thought that alternative positions or
theories should get the same air time as what is already there.

However, if they are excluded from any discussion in a side by side
comparison, they can't be debunked either other than by being
dismissed out of hand.





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..

That's taking it to extremes and was not what I was suggesting could
be done at all.




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.

Then aspects of science should also be discussed in the same arena and
same context in so far as they relate to the subject matter (in this
case - loosely - how we got here.)

I also suggested that alternative theories to currently held
scientific ones be discussed in science and/or that the relevant
theories from science should be discussed in the RE environment.

Perhaps, considering the religious nature of this (and I mean the
ritualistic aspects here since both sides have entrenched positions),
a general studies environment would represent a neutral place.

However, I do think that the topics of evolution, creationism, (ID if
you want) be discussed together side by side and comparisons made.




Once you allow discussion of non scientific theories AS SCIENCE, the
door is open to just about anything.

That wasn't what I was suggesting at all.

One idea was to discuss alternative theories to evolution. I think
that it is reasonable to include those in a science lesson as long as
the basis of them and principles are explained. Students can form
their own opinions from a side by side comparison.

The other issue was to raise the question (in general) about the
compartmentalisation of science, metaphysics etc. as well as the
definitions of what constitutes science and what does not.
I don't see a basis for saying that those could never change in the
future since there has been such change in the past.

As a result of that, something that is considered to be outside the
realms of science today could be within it tomorrow.

This does not mean that I was suggesting that all boundaries be
removed immediately or anything of the kind, or even that it could
impact on ID being considered to be science any time soon.

However, to say that something should be rejected out of hand as being
crackpot, unprovable for all time and that it could never fall within
the bounds of science, is not consistent with the notion of science
itself.





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.

It's interesting that as soon as the extension "ist" is added to a
word it takes on a ritualistic and organised religion dimension.

In that sense, evolutionism is organised religion as well, just of a
different form.


Each wants to have its ideas in play to the exclusion of the other or
on an equal footing basis.



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.;-)


Mmm... What would be your basis for doing that?

Is it the same as mine that if the system directs you to do one thing,
you have a natural tendency to want to do the opposite?







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 is presented and what people take away from a presentation can be
two different things entirely. I do enough of them to observe that a
large part of that is what their experience and preconceived ideas are
rather than what was communicated.

That is why I am slightly concerned that something presented in a
science lesson is coloured more in the direction of being fact than if
it were presented in a different lesson. I am talking generally
here.

If one applies that thought to the evolution position being presented
as part of a science lesson and ID or creation being presented in RE,
they are inevitably coloured differently in terms of whether the
students take away the notion that one is more "true" than the other.






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.

I have said several times that I have not looked at ID and am not
commenting on the ideas of ID being plausible or not so that is not
relevant.






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 have no problem with the second position.








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.

In some respects, pure science has a product to sell as well.
Especially when it comes to looking for funding.





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.

I wasn't saying that I *wanted* that to happen, only that the
possibility of such change be considered, rather than theory being
thrown out of the window as never possibly being able to meet what
future criteria might be.




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.

Once again. I don't have and have not expressed an opinion on
whether or not I think that ID is valid scientific theory. That is
because I have not looked at or studied it.






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.

.... or we sit the two side by side, explain both within their own
contexts and let people decide for themselves.







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.


I can't comment on that because I haven't studied what they say. It
wasn't my point anyway.





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.

That's absolutely fine. However, if you are going to do that then it
is reasonable for others to do the same based on their judgment and
experience. That may not be the same as yours or even mine.







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.

That's fine. However, consider that from their perspective your
presentation of reason may to them appear to be unshakable
righteousness.






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...

OK. That in itself provides a form of comfort (in the sense of the
set of values which we hold as important).






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

Nope. It's not something that I would expect to vote on in the
context of a school currciulum, that's all. Suggesting the ideas in
the first place was rather silly.






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.

This all presupposes that said "crackpot undisproveable notions"
remain that way.





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.

In that respect you are dead wrong. I have not taken a position on
any of those issues - I am merely highlighting that there could be
other possibilties. I know that that may not be convenient, but
there it is.



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.

There is nothing inconsistent in what I said. I did not suggest any
particular forum for such a challenge, neither am I making one. I
simply said that the issues should be subject to challenge, nothing
more than that.




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.

I don't need anything of the kind.

If somebody has already formed an opinion in direction A, then it is
generally harder for them to switch that opinion to direction B than
if they had had no opinion in the first place and had A or B to choose
from. "Holding something dear" is simply a turn of phrase and is
not and was not intended to be any more than that.



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 wasn't suggesting that there was complacency, only that science has
human beings with human failings just like any other discipline.






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.

It might well, but then I would feel bound to want to challenge the
validity of the limit.




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

I haven't taken a position on ID specifically.




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

That describes a level of certainty that I find surprising if one is 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.

I'm not shouting at all. I am simply questioning the basis of the
apparent certainty on those points, if one has a scientific
perspective.



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.

I wasn't setting out to do so.




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..


I wasn't considering the role of God at all, particularly.






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?


Not really. I have not taken a position, but have simply suggested
that there could be alternatives.

I haven't attached probabilities in either direction, but was simply
seeking to highlight than it is just as possible to be dogmatic in one
direction as another.




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.

Where?




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 depends on which point you mean. In terms of the one that I was
making, I have not.



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.

I have. The point was a simple one. That was simply that somebody
can be just as dogmatic based on the use of scientific principle as
someone else is based on something that they happen to believe which
is based on some other principle. Religion is not the sole province
for dogma.




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

I didn't apply a quantitative measure and I have not suggested an end
to rational enquiry.



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

It isn't sophistry at all, and you are imagining motives that simply
aren't there.

My only point was to suggest that there could be alternative
perspectives and possible future changes in how science measures and
deals with things; and perhaps ultimately in the philosophy of science
itself. I didn't apply quantities or timescales to it.

It was not in the context of ID particularly, because as I have
repeatedly said, I have not studied it and neither do I have a view on
its merits or demerits.


--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:34:55 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:37:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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 ;-(

I don't know how you work that one out. I haven't proposed anything.

That's what you thought. You suggested that it might be OK to change the basic
requirements for something to be accepted as a valid scientific theory.

I think that it is possible that today's definitions for requirements
for scientific theories could change in the future, simply because I
would not want to take the position that it could never happen.
Whether I think that it *will* happen or *should* happen is quite
another matter.



In
fact you suggested that all requirements be dropped. That has a rather extreme
effect on our knowledge base.

I'm not sure that I said that explicitly, but if I did, it was not the
intent.



Rather, you have drawn conclusions that assume that I have a specific
position on issues with which you differ.

It's a certain conclusion from your proposals. You were warned.


It might be your conclusion. It certainly isn't mine and not what I
was trying to convey.






[Snip]

--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:36:52 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

Science is almost as full of charlatans as any other field, including
politics. Some aspects, have a highly politicised dimension.

Charlatans in science are confronted by fellow scientists. In any case it's
science itself that you are attacking - not scientists.


Do you think that science isn't open to being challenged in terms of
the boundaries as well as the detail? I have simply floated the
thought that perhaps its scope could change in the future. I haven't
said when or by how much. I would hardly describe it as an attack.




--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:41:42 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK, I understand. However, on that basis a creationist may also say
that he is dealing with predictability. It may not be on the same set
of tests, admittedly, but then who is to say what the tests should and
shouldn't be?

So if I bet on Red Rum winning the Grand National how do you test if my
prediction is correct?

It could be on the form of the horse or the jockey or both and even
the nature of the course.

Equally, it could be that I have inside knowledge as you did that all
the other horses have been nobbled. This is relatively unlikely, but
could not be excluded.



--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:43:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, if an individual considers the issues and takes a position
for himself, then I think that that is quite a different matter.

You're weaseling out. I don't blame you - but the whole of this thread is
about a group of people trying to hijack science lessons in order to promote
their own religious ideas.


I'm not weaseling out at all.


I'm simply bringing you back to where I came in and said that all of
the subject matter is, in one way or another, theory.

I then raised the possibility that scientific perspectives could
change in the future.



--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:53:47 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In the same way that you have said that creationists (implication
being an organised group?) should not be allowed to put the clock back
a millenium; I think that science should not preclude the possibility
(to simplify) of creation (in the Genesis sense) at one of the
spectrum, through divine intervention in nature in the middle, to
progression without divine intervention at all at the other.

You are confused.

Actually I am pretty clear.

All that I have said is that I don't think that a range of ideas
should be precluded. I didn't say that all or any should be
espoused, nor did I say that Darwin's work should be discredited, just
that things should not be excluded.


If you wish to clarify this paragraph then I'll give you an
answer. It will include a reading list and you will have to promise that you
will do some private research before returning to the discussion. Darwin spent
a (very productive) solid 22 years of research between the initial ideas for
natural selection and publishing On the Origin of Species.
And that's the first book on the list. It's eminently readable and contains
some of the best prose in the English language - and much better than his
grandfather's poetry! ;-)

--

..andy