On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:39:37 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

Which 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.

Which 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.


--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:30:25 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

Certainly not.

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.

I haven't said that at all.


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.

... and this makes it unchangeable for all time?



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.

That's a rather patronising reply and is not appropriate in the
context of what was said




[Snip]

--

..andy

In article .com
Tournifreak wrote:

Rob Morley wrote:
In article .com
Tournifreak wrote:
snip
Which is of course, all bo**ocks. Because science has never been
hindered by people questioning its beliefs. Indeed, we learn the truth
by challenging each theory and honing them over time as our ability to
observe and interpret the evidence improves.

ITYF that being tried for heresy can be something of a hindrance ...

...and religion probably has been hindered by lack of questionning I
would think. Now, back to science...


Galileo was a scientist, the Inquisition asked a lot of questions ...

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

I would. We live in a city under siege by barbarians. You're enjoying city
life by knocking the walls down from inside - 'just to see how they were
built'.

--
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:
You're asking to accept any idea as science.

I haven't said that at all.

You have. That's why you need to do some background research.

--
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:
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.

That's a rather patronising reply and is not appropriate in the context of
what was said

'Understand the context' of what you are discussing is not patronising. If you
have a degree in Philosophy then say so and we'll stop trying to simplify our
language - neither of us is very good at that.

--
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:
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.

Not if you want to move the boundary as far as you indicate. Take a look at
the boundaries of Poland throughout the second millennium; you're asking for
far more.

--
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:
Which proposals?

The one that says science might be re-defined to include ID.

--
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 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.

Prdeiction. How do you test if my prediction was correct?

[Hint: the answer is that you test my prediction against reality]
[Hint2: none of the ideas of ID produce predictions that can be tested against
reality]

--
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 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.

In the context of bringing ID within science. But that's where you don't
understand the meaning of your words.

--
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 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.

We were only talking about ID. You would be stupid to speak the way you did
without meaning to indicate that your words were meant to refer to ID.

--
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 495471 20060131 213529 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.

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.

The definition of science cannot be whatever you want it to be.

Andy Hall wrote:

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.


Well thats because you are embroiled in belief.

Let me demonstrate ONE last time a hypothesis that can NEVER be
scientific, no matter HOW much the scope of science changes.


There exists an entity, whose effect on any thing you can ever detect is
immeasurable, such that this entity - although the cause of everything -
can never ever be detected actually doing anything that could not be
explained in some alternative way.


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.


Once again, its not the lack of evidence, its the impossibility of
falsification, that marks the theory out as unscientific. Its a logical,
not a data, flaw.

Have you heard the one about the man in the train, tearing up
newspapers and throwing them out of the window?

When asked why he was doing this, he said 'it keeps the unicorns away'

On being informed that there were no such things as unicorns, he replied
'I know, its incredibly effective isn't it?'


Now I know you have trouble thinking logically, but please try and see
the point here.

In this case it is impossible to distinguish between the truth of the
proposition that there are unicorns, and the method keeps them away, or
the truth of the proposition, that there are no unicorns, and the method
is completely wasted.

Even if he runs out of paper, and the unicorns fail to appear, that does
not falsify his claim that there are in fact unicorns, they just don't
happen to be around this time..

In short, the proposition that unicorns exist (somewhere, some time, in
some shape size or form) is so unbounded that it can NEVER BE PROVED FALSE.

Substitute 'weapons of mass destruction' in 'Iraq' and you have a
similar logical impasse. You can never really prove that there were
not..they might simply be where you haven't looked yet..or moved to
Syria, or dismantled by now...even if you find them, that might be
because someone has just put them there..to find..recently.

When I stated that science performs experiment's that are orthogonal to
God, I meant it in this way: Like the Unicorn experiment, the result of
the experiment says nothing about the existence of god or not.

Take a case that is much BETTER

I mean, white lines appear on the road one day. Did God put them there?
Did they spontaneously appear? Its too late to go back and catch Him in
the act..even if we find a pot of paint and a paint brush, that might be
reasonable evidence that someone painted them on, but its not proof of
anything..if we find a suit of overalls in Gods locker - wherever that
is, spattered with a paint so nearly identical as to be
indistinguishable, we might say that is VERY strong evidence that God
was out there painting..he may even claim he was, but its no PROOF.

HOWEVER at least now we have some idea of who God is, where he keeps his
overalls, and we can watch him like a hawk, and if we ever catch him
somewhere else when other white lines are being painted, we can
definitely DISPROVE that he painted those white lines, so here we DO
have a valid scientific theory.

OTOH God may be so sneaky that he is in two places at once..once we
adduce that quality to God, the whole theory becomes unscientific.we can
never in theory actually tell if God DIDN'T paint the lines, because no
matter where he might be while it was happening, he might also have been
painting the white lines.

Now add in the fact that he is in addition to being Omnipresent, also
invisible..and we have to simply give up. WE simply have no way to show
that anything and everything that has ever happened isn't in some way
the Work of God.

Or of the intergalactic blind invisible omnipresent magical wombat turd
either...

Science cannot be in the business of speculation about things it can
logically never ever have any chance of disproving. It has enough
trouble with things it can disprove.

At least with Gravity, there is an outside chance that one day the apple
instead of falling will shoot off into outer space..and we can measure
and watch it doing it. Thus disproving the absolute validity of the
theory of Gravity.

Its easy enough to fill all the gaps in our understanding with 'well
that's God for you, then' but since he is Mysterious, Omnipotent, and
very ill defined, it says absolutely nothing. Not in scientific terms
anyway.

When you look at God scientifically, all you can actually say is that
the concept is popular..we, as a species, appear not to like to not
believe in some ultimate meaning in our lives. Perhaps the truth is, the
belief in a lie, is actually a useful thing to have?

Like the man tearing up the newspapers, it gives us something to do,
some focus for the train journey, which otherwise might seem long, dull
and pointless, and we might be tempted to throw ourselves out of the
window instead?

I'll leave you with another proposition.

consider the truth of this statement.

"this statement is false"

Is it a true or a false statement?

Anyone versed in logic will immediately pour his can of beer on your head..

And yet possibly well over half of the population of the world appears
to think that statements like this (to judge from the way they act) are
perfectly sensible, and should be believed to have meaning.

Funny old world innit?

Andy Hall wrote:
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.


BUT they cannot BE tested. That's the POINT.

I guess you are with the majority of people in todays education system
that considers that exams that no one fails, means that we are all
suddenly smarter and better educated than we used to be..

And as for testing evolution under RE's rules, its bound to fail innit?

because God is DEFINED to have created the world in 5 days flat. End of
story. Evolution is simply impossible. Anything that looks like
evolution is simply a mistake in understanding.

And in fact anything at all other than ditching your rational mind and
acting purely on faith, is a mistake in understanding...god doesn't
require that you do anything other than trust and believe.




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.

Well learn to analyse properly then.

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


It appears to cause you self delusion though.

Andy Hall wrote:
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.


No. Not science. Period.

Once you throw the absolute criteria that a hypothesis must be
falsifiable out of the window, it ceases to be science.

You keep on dragging out this stale old idea that some sort of new
science based on non scientific principles would be OK.

Sorry, if its based on non scientific principles, it ain't science.

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 simply untrue.

There is plenty of room for competing theories..IF they are SCIENTIFIC.
Creationism isn't scientific.

CREATIONISM ISN'T SCIENTIFIC.

To consider that it is, is to remove all the basis for doing science at
a stroke.

The fact that after repeated demonstrations of WHY it is unscientific,
you still claim it is, should be could be or ought to be considered
such, means that you are either trolling, a lot more stupid than you
appear to be, or have an agenda.


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


I am sorry, it is not intolerant. It is FACT.

Science is the study of things done in a PARTICULAR WAY. If you don't do
it that way, it ain't science.

The moment you redefine science to be the study of things done in some
other way, you open a Pandora's box.

You claim not to be able to see that...but we do.

I personally don't care if people want to believe in anything...thats
their prerogative. But science doesn't believe in ANYTHING. It merely
presents a more detailed picture of the world we seem to find ourselves
in, based on the evidence of our senses, and whose ideas about that
world have to be testable, and in the limit, falsifiable. If they are
not, they can still be interesting ideas, but they are NOT SCIENCE.


Scientific theories are not 'fact' and it is perhaps the one mistake
that poor science teachers make, to present it that way.

Galileo made that mistake: Instead of confining himself to the strict
truth: That organizing the relative motions of the planets and sun in a
heliocentric way simplified the mathematics, rather than restating it in
the form 'the earth goes round the sun' he landed himself in deep water
with those whose utter conviction that the Universe revolves round Man,
was at odds with his statements.

Evolution is not fact. It is theory. Theory which allows us to predict
that e/g. there is a chance that Bird flu will randomly mutate into
something very nasty tat will kill a lot of people, and that by taking
certain steps, we can anticipate and mitigate that event.

Creationism would have us believe that if it does so, its because God
wanted it that way, and we shouldn't stand in his way.

One should take the lessons if history: The rapid changes in the way
people related to God, and indeed the iron grip that medieval
Christianity had on Europe was smashed initially by the Black Death. It
was noted that as many, if not more, priests and bishops died as anyone
else.

People reasoned that afterlife was one thing, but here and now, being
devout hadn't saved them. And that perhaps after all God had intended
this to be a lesson that using your head and working things out was
after all a good thing...


You will note that in the recent Tsunami, the islanders whose cultural
myths centered around a remarkably accurate - if poetic - struggle
between the Land and the Sea, were the ones who, on seeing the sea rush
out, rushed inshore as fast as their legs would carry them. Knowing the
Sea would not take kindly to such impertinence..

While those who gaped in awe and trusted to their Gods to save them,
died in tens of thousands.

You may choose to be among those tens of thousands, I do not. And its my
Darwinian Duty to pass that point along to those prepared to listen.

Andy Hall wrote:

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.


Then you are indeed a total relativist.

A member of the Bandar Log

Just watch out that Ka doesn't get you.

Andy Hall wrote:
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.


But it is, every minute of every day.

This is not a mater of review however. This is a matter of whether we
build houses on solid foundations, or castles in the air.

You MAY choose to do the latter..but I can assure you that it has never
been found to produce a structure of any worthwhile permanence in the past.

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.


Well make Sunday school compulsory then. I don't care. Nothing put ME
off religion MORE than being MADE to go to Sunday school..



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.

Of course. The same way that when I go into the supermarket to buy
oranges, I don't expect or want to find the place marked 'oranges'
randomly full of soap powder and tampons.

And some mindless assistant called 'Andy Hall' telling me 'well they are
both product lines mate, can't see why you are being so upset'.

I guess it was you my wife approached in the vegetable section of
Tesco's, inquiring whether 'they had any sqaushes' only to be led to the
soft drinks aisle..



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.



well the answer is yes, certain things are fixed. And keeping science
scientific is one of them. And they should be fixed, or we might as well
all wank off in RE under the excuse that we are 'feeling the power of Jesus'

Andy Hall wrote:
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.


well they can't. Not just because a bunch of religious nuts and their
apologists want it that way.

Karl Popper spent several years coming up with reasons why things like
Marxism and Freudianism failed to be scientific..he presented his
conclusions, and by and large they were accepted by the scientific
community, and happily for us, they also preclude creationism, crystal
ball futurology, and many many other pseudo sciences from being
considered valid.

If you don't like that, tough. But as long as there is a scientific
community exercising direct control over what science is, its down to
you and the others who want things changed, to present themselves in the
way he did, and show by force of reason, that there is a new and logical
reason to consider that something science does not include, should
include it.

So far you have failed, utterly and miserably.

You are laboring under the woolly minded preconception so typical of
the self indulgent that what people think, is important in a scientific
context. The whole thrust of science has been to weasel out what is
left when you remove peoples beliefs and desires and imaginations from
the mixture.

If you want to reverse that trend, you want to destroy science.





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.


yes, but a correct one, since its inherent in the definition of what we
call science.

You cannot say 'I define oranges to be round orange colored fruit' and
then say - 'oh well, I fancy a pint of lager, but I am at the orange
basket in the supermarket, and because I am too lazy to move, I insist
that oranges be refined to include bottles of mass produced alcoholic
cats' ****' and expect to be taken for anything other than a lazy
drunken git.




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.


They are not scientists. And actually, its far less full of charlatans
than most other professions, because charlatans get booted out fairly
quickly. Again you confuse what science really is, with what people who
call themselves scientists would have you believe it is.

There is a difference, but, one assumes, you can't tell it.



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.

They are.
Insofar as your modifications would apply, anyway. They are subject to
change, but not in the way you want them to.



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.


So what? There is a difference, in that sciences' definitions work, and
achieve pragmatic results within the field it restricts itself to.

Religion, however contests that its knowledge is all encompassing, and
of absolute validity. Science doesn't even attempt to do that. It is
completely aware that its knowledge is relative, it has no final
answers, and that withing the discipline of what it seeks to do, it is
impossible to seek any.

Perhaps that is the true answer to your problem Science lacks the
arrogance of religion, and refuses to take it on board.



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.


That is as I have pointed out time and time again, as meaningless an
option as saying 'consider that the sun will not rise tomorrow, and
develop a science to explain why not'

It is not, a scientific option.

I don't mind considering it, as long as you don;'t mind me dismissing it
as utterly pointless in about 15 seconds.

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.

Yes you have, you have proposed extending the definition of science to
include the redefinition of science on an ad hoc basis.

That is a recursive operation that utterly invalidates science of any
sport, and rational thought of any sort.

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

No, we have examined your statements and logically analyzed them and
extrapolated their implications..and by finding the implications absurd,
declare that the statements and proportions are ipso facto also absurd.

The fact that you continue to make them demonstrates by the same token a
desire to achieve some sort of end..

The fact that you continue to deny any personal interest in the matter
is at odds with your observed behavior.

Now I know that you do not place any value in reason or logic, and
simply feel that whatever people want the world to be, or say it is, is
what it is, but you are not in the majority here.


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.


You are not raising a question. We answered that a long time ago. You
are pounding a drum and grinding an axe.

To reiterate, the answer to the question 'is it not reasonable to allow
the possibility that the definition of science be extended to
incorporate theories that cannot ever be proved to be false?' is no. It
is not reasonable.

You are using creationist logic, logic that fails to appreciate the
hierarchies of knowledge that exists, and the fact that all knowledge is
not equivalent, and all ideas are not equivalent.

To accept that they are, is to deny any validity to science whatsoever,
for now, and forever.


Therefore your INTENTION be it tacit, implicit or whatever, in asking
whether what you propose is reasonable, is tantamount to suggesting that
it is reasonable to discard reason itself.

I say that that is a recursive and meaningless statement. That you seem
to propose it as a completely reasonable one makes you either a complete
fol, or a snake oil salesman, or both.

If you are merely acting as you claim for others who hold this notion,
that makes you a pimp, and worse, a pimp for fools and snake oil salesmen.



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.

Oh yeah? I think not.


I am not suggesting the debasing of science. Far from it.

Yes you are. That is precisely what you are suggesting. If you can't see
that you are s fool, if you are lying, you are a snake oil salesman, and
if you are pimping on behalf of someone else, I suggest you lose that
person quickly out of your life.


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.

And the answer is no, it shouldn't.

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 07:41:05 -0000, Rob Morley
wrote:

In article .com
Tournifreak wrote:

Rob Morley wrote:
In article .com
Tournifreak wrote:
snip
Which is of course, all bo**ocks. Because science has never been
hindered by people questioning its beliefs. Indeed, we learn the truth
by challenging each theory and honing them over time as our ability to
observe and interpret the evidence improves.

ITYF that being tried for heresy can be something of a hindrance ...

...and religion probably has been hindered by lack of questionning I
would think. Now, back to science...


Galileo was a scientist, the Inquisition asked a lot of questions ...

Just get rid of religion - good people, bad people, or those
in-between - nothing to do with religion, religion just causes
problems and makes people bad - brain-washed stupidity - adults
teaching their children at a young age (any religion) should be
classed as child cruelty - they are too young to think for themselves.

Nature, science, common-sense - that's reality - religious mumbo jumbo
nonsense all of it.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
When you look at God scientifically, all you can actually say is that
the concept is popular..we, as a species, appear not to like to not
believe in some ultimate meaning in our lives. Perhaps the truth is, the
belief in a lie, is actually a useful thing to have?

It doesn't matter whether god exists or not for a belief in god to be
effective. An application of scientific method has been able to show that
believing that you will recover from a disease can actually help in that
recovery. It may be linked to release of biochemicals in the body. People with
a belief in god can improve their health by prayer or if others pray for them
- but not if they do not know that others are praying for them. Of course this
effect is not limited to a belief in god. If you believe, from experience,
that medicine can help then the pretended application of medicine may also
(sometimes) help - the placebo effect. Of course all that this does is show
that some of the benefits of having a belief may work just as well even if
that belief is spurious - but it does show that having a belief has a positive
value in evolutionary terms.

Now there's a pretty dilemma for both scientists who happen to also be
atheists - and creationists with a contempt for the science of 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 ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And as for testing evolution under RE's rules, its bound to fail innit?

because God is DEFINED to have created the world in 5 days flat. End of
story. Evolution is simply impossible. Anything that looks like
evolution is simply a mistake in understanding.

It is worth pointing out that many people with a strong belief in god do not
take the Genesis stories (or similar) literally and aften make good
scientists. Accept that the actions of god cannot form part of scientific
investigation and most people have no problems working in a research
laboratory during the week and going to church on Sunday. (amend details
according to circumstances).

--
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:

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?

He may say that, but he would be lying. You cannot test for something
that is a definition, not a hypothesis.


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


Its not incompatible, its orthogonal. It is simply IRRELEVANT.

A true scientist can believe in God, or not believe in God.

He simply sets that belief aside when doing science.

However believing in the sort of God the creationist believe in, means
that he has no REASON to do science at all. He has his explanation,
perfect and complete. Why should he seek beyond that?



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.

You don't quite get to the shades of meaning I am trying to convey here.

If we truly believe that there is a force in the world that can and does
change anything and everything according to a plan that is beyond our
understanding, to the point of making any rational inquiry pointless,
then we undertake no rational inquiry, or we are at some level a hypocrite.

Only by removing the concept of God to a remoter location, can we truly
believe that our rational inquiry has any purpose. God may be here,
right now, but as long as what is happening is not being changed by his
Presence, then we can undertake rational inquiry, produce testable
hypotheses, and 'do science' as it were.

This is the fundamental battleground between the fundamentalist
religions, and science.

We find ourselves as it were, on a laying field, playing a game.

There seems to be a referee..play is not random, or we seem to discern
a pattern.

The playing field is not flat, nor are the goalposts necessarily in the
same place, but there does indeed seem to be some Pattern to the game.

The fundamental conflict is between two sets of players, one set who
maintain that by studying the game, we can understand the pattern, and
by another set, who declare that although they are useless at playing
the game, actually what the game is all about is simply getting off the
playing field altogether, covered in glory, rather than mud.

(really I wish they would, and leave the field clear for those who enjoy
playing the game, and winning)

Now there are those who still believe that probably what the game is all
about, is getting off the field covered in glory, but still enjoy
playing the game and trying to learn the rules. Those are your Christian
scientists if you like.

Those who simply shrug their shoulders and say that they simply don't
know what the game is about, but enjoy the challenge of learning the
rules, are people like me.

Those that insist that the game is about getting covered in glory, to
please their parents who they insist are waiting off field ready with
warm towels and a hot bath, and lots of cheer leaders, tend to pick
fights with each other about whose parents are the best parents, and
since their aim is to get covered in glory, they don't mind killing each
other.

What you are telling me to countenance, is like saying that I should
include an opinion in what the game is all about, when trying to deduce
the rules...but what I am telling you, is that it doesn't affect my
analysis one way or the other. MY aim is NOT to get off the field
covered in glory, or mud, its to stay playing as long as possible and
whack the ball through the goalposts as often as I can. That's why I am
here.

I have made my choice...and when time is called, I will take whatever comes.

Because NOTHING in the analysis of the game leads me to believe it has
any real purpose whatsoever.
But even if it has, thats not what I as a scientist, am bothered with.
My purpose is to analyze the game, not to get involved with what this
may, or may not, have to say abut who, if anyone, put the game together.

Science is trying to work out the rules.

Religion is trying to work out the purpose.

Science tries to answer 'how?'
Religion tries to answer 'why?'

When sciences answers 'why?' it comes up with 'why not?'
When religion answers 'how?' it comes up with 'by divine intervention'

Neither of these are satisfactory answers.

OTOH when sciences answers 'how' it comes up with a very complete
picture of a suite of interrelated rules which MOST of the game seems to
be explained by.

Religion, when asked to answer 'why' ...well it posits a creative force
of some sort..which is interesting..but lets be clear here...you can use
reason to understand the how, but reason can't understand the
why...because the VERY QUESTION WHY implies a PURPOSE.

Now we have string evidence to suppose the that the universe responds to
the question 'how' in that science largely works.

We have NO evidence to show that the universe responds to the question
'why' outside of human society...

Unless we interpret 'why' to men 'how' in that 'why does X happen'is
taken to mean 'how does X happen' and we can reply 'by dint of Y having
caused it..'

Your proposal that we extend science is tantamount to saying that we
extend it to answer 'why' not 'how' - my rely is that science cannot
address that question.

Scientists would say that asking 'why the Universe? ' is a meaningless
question.

Religious people insist that it is in fact the only question worth
asking and having an answer to.

I suggest that THEIR answerer glorifies man way beyond what is
justified: Its suggests that the world is there at god's behest for the
sole purpose of creating men to worship him.

I suggest that is childish and dangerously stupid.

It has been said that someone who believes in God just in case is
hedging his bets with respect to his afterlife.

My response is that someone who believes in god just in case is
compromising his survial in this one.

You takes yer choice





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, thats why Popper is so invaluable. He - like Occam, whose Razor
provides another crucial test - gibes an unequivocal way to reject
certain theories completely and forever.

Now stuff tat oases his tests may still not be acceptable to the
scientific community, on te grounds of - say - Occam's Razor. But Occams
Razor is not a thing that exists in such a definite sense. Occams razor
is used to discriminate between competing theories, not to establish
whether they are scientific or not.

Religion pases Occam's test with flying colors.

"God made everything, for reasons you can't understand, so shut up and
get praying" is as simple as it gets.

Thats why it appeals to simple people.

It ought to, St Paul spun Christs message beautifully into a political
tool of the Roman empire.

Campbell pales into comparison..


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.


No, that is simply again not true. God is defined to be boundless
infinite, all encompassing, eternal and ineffable.

Once you say that measuring gravity is akin to measuring gods
toenails..then immediately god has ceased to be what he is claimed to
be. You can't nail god down on a cross, as it were..he's not god if you
can..

Thats the point. The while bloody point that you seem to endlessly resist.

Lets say we find out that a guided intelligence actually helped create
the world. Would it be God? Or alien's from Zarg?

If the latter, was God behind it? you end up with a problem of infinite
recursion..whatever you discover might be part of God, or it might not.
Its a matter of definition, not inquiry.

If creationists were to make a DEFINITE statement about god, one that
couple be tested, then at once that fall under th remit of science. If
they said 'if you recite "agabagawombatturd, give me money and a bird"
and every time money, and the woman of your choice appeared by the
bed..well then we could investigate that. Scientifically. We might vary
the incantation, and see if it worked still- whatever.

But they are careful to restrict themselves to that which cannot be
tested. 'god made the world in 5 days'

Sure. Personally I thought it was Ronald McDonald and the purpose was to
make mincemeat of us all. Stands to reason dunnit?

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.

exactly. Definitions. Show me a god that can be measured, and I will
show you one that doesn't measure up to what religions claim him to be.

Ergo, you can't assess the validity of God using the scientific method.

Ergo, any one who says you can, or might be able to, is spinning you a
line of bull****, whether or not they realise it themselves.



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.


No, its a the way it appears to be to human beings

You might as well say that its silly to separate oranges from tampons,
because its all gods creation.

Fine, suck on a tampon then.

If you are going to deny any validity to discrimination, and choose
whatever suits your agenda, you are a creationist at heart, and belong
in a cult.

Or are you a fully paid up member already?


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.


Oh come on.
I am losing all respect for you. I really mean that.

You are just saying 'maybe'
sure maybe anything within the power of your imagination.

That won;t make it true, or make it happen.

Science is concerned with making things happen. God has proved to be
useless at making things happen.


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.

No one is disregarding what is not safe and certain, what they are
disregarding is stuff that is proven (by dint of it never having worked
or had any effect before) to have no relevance to what they are trying
to achieve.



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.

but God is the name we put on what we do not understand, and is not
predictable

You cannot have it both ways.

You seem stick in a dilemma of your own making.

On the one hand you want to achieve at least acceptance for some sort of
theological ideas that would limit god to the status of some fairly
normal natural force.

On the other hand, you want to preserve the mystery of an infinite and
mysterious Being wot made it all up


You can't have Father Christmas and then tell your daddy what you want
for Christmas as well.



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


I am perfectly comfortable in it. I have spent a lifetime working out
why lines are drawn and where they are drawn.

I happen to be gifted with a brain that works fast enough to see logical
flaws when they are presented, without having to ponder a lifetime and
still get it wrong.

I don't have a problem with religion giving meaning and emotional
comfort in a meaningless and comfortless world..I do object to it
insisting that the price we pay for that comfort and meaning is to deny
the validity of the one technique we have successfully used to actually
achieve real physical comfort.

I am not scared of creationism. I am scared of creationists.


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.

wrong wrong wrong.

The scope of science is with the rational.
if it aint rational, it aint science.

Think of a number
Add 4 to it
Multiply by 3
Subtract twelve from it
divide by three
add 7 to it
take away the number you first thought of.
The answer is 7

Golly. How DID I know what number you first thought of?



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.

Thats because your thinking is muddled, and you are a closet faithful,
and you depend on believe, not logic and observation.

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.

And I am saying that they have to be.
Otherwise we are not talking science, but simply having flights of fancy.


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.

Oh for ****s sake get off the stuck groove will you.

You are trolling badly. Science is what it is because thats what it's
defined to be. Define it in another way and it is not science..there
comes a point at which something ceases to be what it is, if you change
the definition far enough You are not fiddling with a minor change, you
are smashing the definition to pieces.

You cannot define tampons as oranges and expect to get the same nourishment.



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.

Of course, but that is not what you are proposing.

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?


Nothing whatsoever, but that is not what you are proposing


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.


lie all you like...


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?

because even a dying rattlesnake can kill you


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

Its a threat in the short rem, and its a threat in the medium term. Its
not a threat in the long term, but my life is short term.

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.

Sure, but don't then propose that we should also let him change our
principles, because that is something HE finds part of what he accepts

I am with Mark Twain.

"I guess a rattlesnake ain't responsible fer bein a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on him jess the same if I ketch him round mah chillun"


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.


no one precludes the possibility, not even scientists, but that
possibility is simply undecidable, and science does not concern itself
wasting its time over undecidable propositions.

THAT is why they are called metaphysical, not scientific.

Anyone fancy a pint?

In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote:
Anyone fancy a pint?

Mine's a bitter (Thwaites) ;-)

--
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 said the following on 31/01/2006 04:25:


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

Andy, this is where you are missing the point about what science *is*.

There are *no* "boundaries of what science should or should not include"

The word "science" is a handle which is used to describe a rubric
(mindset or approach) to understanding the universe, but it is
fundamentally *not* a list of subject matters which is open to debate or
modification.

"Hard" science is a rubric along the lines of: -

1. making observations*.
2. formulating theories based on those observations.
3. making predictions based on the theories.
4. devising experiments that test the predictions.
5. modifying the theories if observed results don't match the theories.
6. throwing out the theories if they prove to be untenable or someone
else comes up with a better theory (which more completely explains and
predicts how some aspect of the universe works).

*Observations must be objective and independently repeatable. Every
effort should be made to ensure that the observations are definitive
(you are sure of *what* you are measuring and take an account of the
influence of the measuring system on the property being measured) and
accurate (preferably traceable to an international standard).

There is no place in "hard" science for subjectivity or blind faith.

Scientists (any everybody else in the world) do, of course, hold
subjective opinions about the way the universe works and they discuss
and promote those opinions at length, but the scientific community is
generally very careful to distinguish "hard" science from
untested/unproven ideas, opinions, theories and conjectures.

*Any* area of study which lends itself to a rigorous "hard" scientific
approach is fair game to be called science - always has been and always
will be.

You seem to be taking a position that we should be open changing this
rubric - but if we changed the rubric, then we would be describing a
different rubric and the new rubric would need a different name to
differentiate it from science.

An example. There are some that say psychology is pseudo-science and not
pure science, because there are no instruments which can definitively,
repeatably, completely and accurately measure the "state" of a human (or
animal) mind and therefore psychology fails the above rubric because any
observations are necessarily (at least partly) subjective, not objective.

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.

...and cover them with the same respectability that they think science has..

Thus conversation reminds me of one I had with a Swazi who worked in the
same company I worked in, in Johannesburg..

"Why do the white people all have swimming pools and Mercedes cars?"

"Because they can"

"Well, come the revolution, all the black people will have swimming
pools and Mercedes cars"

"No, they won't. There isn't enough water or money in South Africa for
that to happen"

He didn't have to reply..I knew he was thinking 'white man's lies' as I
spoke...

Andy Hall wrote:
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.


You may think you can.

John and I know that we can't. We actually understand that basis, and
its as immutable as Gods will is claimed to be.

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.


Well, in that one phrase you have denied the validity of science.

Science is based on the supposition that one CAN know what will happen
when one makes a change, and is dedicated to finding out what that will be.

I accept that most people today would think your statement reasonable,
as most people today think that where probably were WMD in Iraq, or that
Tony Bliar never told porkies.

Sadly John and I are traditionalists we do think that its possible to
predict the outcome of changes, and that blind faith and random fiddling
are inferior to actually working things through in an intelligent an
logical manner..



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.


That would be fine if it was not a fundamental test as this particular
hypothesis has failed.

It wasn't that it fell at the third fence, or even the first, it wasn't
that it simply failed to get out of the starting box. It wasn't even
that it wasn't a horse. It turned out not to have legs, or be capable of
running...

Now you want me to presuppose that a legless blob of imagination should
have the rules of horse racing fixed so it has a chance of winning?

Get real...no..its not possible for you to get real

In order to enter a horse race, its necessary to have a horse.

If you cannot agree with that, then there is nothing further to say.


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.


What is over the edge is different from completely outside the
theoretical limits.

We may argue whether a boiler can be made to be 50% 70%, or even 90%
efficient. Once it is stated as 109% efficient, we KNOW that we have
stepped off limits.

Andy Hall wrote:

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.


I know. Thats the problem

I don't suppose you can see why a 109% efficient boiler could not, in
principle, be constructed, either.


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.

Its not their decision in terms of true science, if it is their decision
in terms of political power, it will be the worse for them, their
country, and for science.


Now what?

Nothing.

The radical jihadists DO believe that you should be slaughtered as an
infidel, and your wives and daughters kept at home or wrapped in burkas
and follow two steps behind them.

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 :-)

It is not.

You are demonstrating entirely Drivelissh attitudes.




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.

Thats because you don't understand how I see it. And why.

If I were to say to you that if you can have a 90% efficient boiler,
then obviously you can have a 110% efficient boiler, because its only a
minor change to a detail of the numbers, would you not be justifiably
irritated?

What you fail to grasp is that in some matters the world is not smooth
and uniform..it has sharp edges. Step over some lines and you fall off
completely.

Science has sharp edges, and they can't be moved. To pretend that they
can is self delusion or outright lying.

Undecidable propositions cannot be decided upon. No amount of shilly
shallying about the 'rules' of decision making can make an undecidable
proposition decidable.

Because once you have made a decision, it ceases to BE an undecidable
proposition.

You appear to think that ID and creationism are merely 'different'
theories of the same sort. That is not the case, they are different
SORTS of theories.

You are struggling to find a way to make them acceptable - give up,.
They simply are not acceptable. Because the way they are framed makes
them INHERENTLY unscientific.

I don;t claim that evolution is a particularly good, or complete theory,
just the best one we have at the moment.

Creationism is the worst of all, on all possible counts.

It only fits in at all, because of the Bible and a wild and simple
minded application of Occam's Razor.

You keep asking why its so bad, we keep explaining why, and you keep
saying 'thats because of the way you are judging it'

Sure.

So one has to assume that no criteria exists beyond the summated
political opinions of the Bandar Log?

At some point we have to identify whether or not you believe that the
world is simply the sum total of peoples opinions,. or whether it has
some existence independent of them.

If the latter, then you have to accept that some things are right, and
some opinions are just wrong.

Stones, no matter how you define them, do not fall upwards.Of course you
can define up to be down, and down to be up, and claim victory, but the
stone won't change its behaviour.

"Eppur, Sui Muove"



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.


They are dismissed out of hand, for one good reason..there is no more
that can said about them. They exist as statements that have meaning of
a sort, but whose veracity or otherwise can never be established.

I believe the correct term for such statements is 'empty'

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.



But you were. You were suggesting that logically empty statements be
taken and taught as completely valid alternatives to logically rich, and
eminently falsifiable theories as if they were somehow of a similar order.

Fer chrissajke, bring back Phlogiston..at lest it was testable, was
tested, and was found wanting..

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.)

Of course, and they are, because in that sense they are not actually
science at all.

Once again this logical disjunct in your mind that prevents you from
seeing the difference between a scientific theory and a metaphysical one
is a complete emotional block with you.

You have been taken in by the snake oil salesmen, and there is an end to it.



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.


Alternative SCIENTIFIC theories are..and should be..

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.


Possibly..but there is a difference between someone stating with utter
certainty that a square is not a circle, and someone insisting that god
made the world in 7 days.

If you cannot see that a square is not a circle, because we have
developed a precise language to CLEARLY identify the DIFFERENCE, having
noted it in the first place, and that to call them the same thing is to
deny the WHOLE basis of geometry..and make it impossible to actually
perform it..

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


Yes, but that is not a discussion that belongs in science. It belongs in
a philosophy study.

Science gets to the simple conclusion that ID and creationism are simply
not scientific, and that is the end of it.

Science is i the business of deciding wahich of many decidia=ble
propositions are

- simple
- effective
- calculable

If you want to decide which of several undecidable propositions you want
to place your trust in,that is an entirely different matter.

Consider.

God made the world in 7 days
The Glorts farted the universe out of globstrach in a sexual frenzy in
20 billion years
The world just appeared exactly as we see it, this very moment.

Prove to me that ANY of those are WRONG. Or even just show me how I
could go ABOUT proving any of them wrong.

Any of them MIGHT be completely correct. I doubt it, but they might.
I have NO WAY to decide on a rational basis.

YOou make instinctively feel that the first proposition is correct, and
that the other two are not, but science is not about feelings..its about
hard testable things, and these propositions though hard, are not testable.



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.


Yes it was.
ID and creationism ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. They are undecidable.
End of story


One idea was to discuss alternative theories to evolution.

There are plenty around, but they do not fit the data as well as evolution.

Of course ID fits the data, but it isn't scientific..

Of course the fact that the universe came into being as I was writing
this and will vanish when I stop, and doesn't actually exist beyond your
own direct experience, is another one. That fits the data perfectly. I
mean you can't see any fossils right now, so they don't exist. They are
only things that the voices in your head have told you exist, and you
don't want to trust voices in your head do you?

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.

well with respect, that's because you are a bit of a dick, and do not
have a first clue about what science is actually all about.



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.


Actually there really hasn't. Not at the fundamental level.

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

yes, but ID isn't one of them. Not in its present form.
Creationism never ever could be.

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.

Yes it is. Totally consistent.

With what the best scientists can in their best moments come up with as
a definition of science.

Science is not the only subject in the classroom.

Why must *Creationism go in there ? why not in pottery? why not in
music? what is it that makes you feel it has ANY place in a science
class, rather than philosophy, or RE, or domestic science..

* it has been noted that removing the AO** from creationism, gives you
cretinism.

** Artificial Obfuscation.

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.

dogmatist.
Don't be such a dick.


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

No, that is the province of dogmatists.


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?


Its as stupid as anything else, but I like the naked women, free sex and
drugs, and the pointy hats?

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?

No..




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 Hall wrote:

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.

Well you are intrinsically wrong. Squares will never become circles, no
matter how much you pretend they are.

Andy Hall wrote:

Do you think that science isn't open to being challenged in terms of
the boundaries as well as the detail?

Yes. Its not open to being challenged on the boundaries..except possibly
by the very best thinkers and philosophers we have.

And you aren't one, for sure, and nether are the god botherers.


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.


Nor was the war on terror a war really..but lots of people died.

Andy Hall wrote:
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.

but at lest the theories are scientific, and tested, and not found wanting

Whereas the theories you would have us countenance, are unscientific,
untestable, and therefore worthless. In science.


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


But they can't. Not on the matter as to what constitutes a scientific
theory. Not in the way you mean anyway. Its not an issue of dogma, its
an issue of impossibility.

wrote:
Just get rid of religion - good people, bad people, or those
in-between - nothing to do with religion, religion just causes
problems and makes people bad

This is a ludicrous statement. It only makes sense if you ignore the
hundreds of well-known social reformers who were motivated by their
faith thoughout history. A very brief list: Wilberforce, Booth, Mahatma
Phule, Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Martin Luther King etc etc...)

You would have to ignore thousands of faith-based social organisations
and the hundreds of thousands of people who work for them for low or no
wages. e.g. World Vision, Tear Fund, Christian Aid, Cafod, Pax Christi
etc etc; and the many who started out as faith-based organisations:
(Red Cross, Barnardos, Initiatives of Change etc etc)

You would have to ignore the technological and sociotal revolutions
that have come about (or at least been accelerated by) religious
groups. eg. printing, global exploration, universal schooling etc.

You would have to ignore the scientific studies that suggest that
believers are (generally speaking) better educated, happier, more
stable, have longer-lasting marriages and have better sex lives! I'll
not quote links here, but it's not hard to find such reports on google
or BBC news.

And you would have to ignore the thousands of churches and other
faith-based groups thoughout this country who week by week provide
services free of charge that the government can't or won't. eg. pretty
much every church I know of has a mums & tots group, at least one youth
group; ministers of religion provide councelling and practical
assistance to needy people etc etc.

So "religion just causes problems and makes people bad" doesn't quite
seem fair to me.

- brain-washed stupidity - adults
teaching their children at a young age (any religion) should be
classed as child cruelty - they are too young to think for themselves.

What religion would you teach your children then? Secular humanism?
Atheism? Universalism? Your worldview (like it or not) is your
religion. You might not believe in a god, but you still believe in a
set of principles that govern the way you lead your life. Everyone
teaches their kids their own religion whether they intend to or not,
because your kids pick up on how you behave. They see how you respond
to different situations.

You can bring kids up however you want to and when they become
teenagers, some will accept your religious views and some will reject
them, just as they will your views on all sorts of other subjects.
Where some religions go wrong is where people are forced to behave in a
certain way /against their will/.

Oh, and topical humour on beware referring to the vast majority of
the population of planet earth as "brainwashed" and "stupid". Someone
might take offence and then you might get locked up by Tony's cronies.
topical humour off But seriously, don't make rash generalisations.

Nature, science, common-sense - that's reality - religious mumbo jumbo
nonsense all of it.

Religious teaching seems generally wholy beneficial to society to me.
(If we all lived by the ten commandments, we'd be in a much happier
society). The problem is religious people. They tend to screw up. But
then, hey, we all do don't we?

Regards,
Jon.

In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
You would have to ignore the scientific studies that suggest that
believers are (generally speaking) better educated, happier, more
stable, have longer-lasting marriages and have better sex lives! I'll
not quote links here, but it's not hard to find such reports on google
or BBC news.

And including last week's New Scientist. But that information is clearly
nonsense to you as it was only obtained by the scientific methods that you
wish to destroy. And I'm sure that you are disappointed that it seems
indicated that believers have the advantage because they believe - and not
because there is any magic (or god) in their beliefs or believing.

--
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

John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
You would have to ignore the scientific studies that suggest that
believers are (generally speaking) better educated, happier, more
stable, have longer-lasting marriages and have better sex lives! I'll
not quote links here, but it's not hard to find such reports on google
or BBC news.

And including last week's New Scientist. But that information is clearly
nonsense to you as it was only obtained by the scientific methods that you
wish to destroy. And I'm sure that you are disappointed that it seems
indicated that believers have the advantage because they believe - and not
because there is any magic (or god) in their beliefs or believing.

John - I don't really want to be drawn into that discussion again as I
know I don't have the time available to do it justice. My cr**py
newsreader (google) makes it very hard to keep up at the best of times.
And then there are the 3 kids under 4 yrs... :-)
I was merely pointing out the falacy of Mr NoSpam's comments. Which,
as a fair and balanced man, (and not in any sense a religion-of-science
zealot) I'm sure you will (mostly) agree with. :-)

Regards,
Jon.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:37:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


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.


But it is, every minute of every day.

This is not a mater of review however. This is a matter of whether we
build houses on solid foundations, or castles in the air.

You MAY choose to do the latter..but I can assure you that it has never
been found to produce a structure of any worthwhile permanence in the past.


Because something has not changed in the past, doesn't mean that it
can't change in the future. I would accept that it could be more
likely to change in the future if it had in the past.





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.


Well make Sunday school compulsory then.

No reason to do that.

I don't care. Nothing put ME
off religion MORE than being MADE to go to Sunday school..

I completely agree. This is part of organised religion as far as I am
concerned and it doesn't interest me.

However. I do observe that there are a set of subjects that are
compulsory in day school and people don't object to that.





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.

Of course. The same way that when I go into the supermarket to buy
oranges, I don't expect or want to find the place marked 'oranges'
randomly full of soap powder and tampons.

This is not comparable.


And some mindless assistant called 'Andy Hall' telling me 'well they are
both product lines mate, can't see why you are being so upset'.

... and that is being silly.


I guess it was you my wife approached in the vegetable section of
Tesco's, inquiring whether 'they had any sqaushes' only to be led to the
soft drinks aisle..


No. I don't like squashes. EIther kind.




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.



well the answer is yes, certain things are fixed. And keeping science
scientific is one of them. And they should be fixed, or we might as well
all wank off in RE under the excuse that we are 'feeling the power of Jesus'

That's a silly comparison.

Effectively you are saying that it is OK that science remain fixed and
unchangeable, while on the other hand you criticise anything having an
element of faith for doing the same.



--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:16:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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 possi

Yes you have, you have proposed extending the definition of science to
include the redefinition of science on an ad hoc basis.be

No I didn't. I simply suggested that it could be considered. I didn't
say when, that it should or to what degree.



That is a recursive operation that utterly invalidates science of any
sport, and rational thought of any sort.

It seems to me that the notion that the definition and scope of
science has to remain fixed for all time is also recursive.



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

No, we have examined your statements and logically analyzed them and
extrapolated their implications..and by finding the implications absurd,
declare that the statements and proportions are ipso facto also absurd.

Who's this "we"?

All that I have said is that the boundaries of science should be
subject to scrutiny and that it is possible that they may change at
some point.

The suggestion that that this cannot be possible is the position of
absurdity.


The fact that you continue to make them demonstrates by the same token a
desire to achieve some sort of end..

The fact that you continue to deny any personal interest in the matter
is at odds with your observed behavior.

You have not differentiated between what I actually said as opposed to
what you imagine my positions, if any to be.

There is no agenda and no end other than to suggest than to raise the
possibility that the boundaries and definitions could change in the
future.

If it suits you to look for something else, that is up to you, but it
won't be based on anything but your own conjecture.


Now I know that you do not place any value in reason or logic, and
simply feel that whatever people want the world to be, or say it is, is
what it is, but you are not in the majority here.


I haven't said that at all. Again you are seeking to create for me a
position that I don't hold. First of all you are going to get it
wrong. Secondly to suggest that somebody has a position and then
seeking to suggest that it is lacking in reason and logic is an
exercise lacking in reason and logic itself, not to mention being
dishonest.



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.


You are not raising a question.

Yes I am.

We answered that a long time ago. You
are pounding a drum and grinding an axe.

Who is this "we" and what makes it authoritative?


To reiterate, the answer to the question 'is it not reasonable to allow
the possibility that the definition of science be extended to
incorporate theories that cannot ever be proved to be false?' is no. It
is not reasonable.

Sorry but I disagree. I think it is entirely reasonable to allow the
possibility that the boundaries and definitions could change.

Moreover, it is not reasonable to suggest that something that cannot
be proved true or false today, with the extent of our knowledge and
understanding must always remain so.






You are using creationist logic, logic that fails to appreciate the
hierarchies of knowledge that exists, and the fact that all knowledge is
not equivalent, and all ideas are not equivalent.

I am not using creationist logic at all. I am perfectly aware that
hierarchies of knowledge exist. However, I am not so narrow minded
as to suggest that they have to remain fixed for all time, and I
certainly have not suggested that all ideas are equivalent, only that
it is reasonable to consider them all.


To accept that they are, is to deny any validity to science whatsoever,
for now, and forever.

I haven't suggested that they are, only that consieration being given.



Therefore your INTENTION be it tacit, implicit or whatever, in asking
whether what you propose is reasonable, is tantamount to suggesting that
it is reasonable to discard reason itself.

Now you are throwing in more poins based on what you perceive my
intentin to be. SOrry, but iwon't wash.



I say that that is a recursive and meaningless statement. That you seem
to propose it as a completely reasonable one makes you either a complete
fol, or a snake oil salesman, or both.

That's nothing more than a completely stupid remark.


If you are merely acting as you claim for others who hold this notion,
that makes you a pimp, and worse, a pimp for fools and snake oil salesmen.


As is this.

You have tried to invent a position that you would like me to hold, in
order to debunk it.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but it's an extrapolation into nonsense.




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.

Oh yeah? I think not.


That's up to you.

It's an everyday occurence for ideas to be floated for consideration
without the person floating them having to take sides or even to have
an opinion at all.

I know that this doesn't suit you, but that's your issue, not mine.




I am not suggesting the debasing of science. Far from it.

Yes you are.

No I am not.

That is precisely what you are suggesting. If you can't see
that you are s fool,

No it is you who is the fool for resolutely excluding the possibility
of change. Ironically, this is precisely the position that you
criticise for those who take what they deem to be an inviolable
religious position.



if you are lying, you are a snake oil salesman, and
if you are pimping on behalf of someone else, I suggest you lose that
person quickly out of your life.


From where are you dreaming up those notions? They are evenmore
nonsensical.





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.

And the answer is no, it shouldn't.

According to you.



--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:27:08 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

I would. We live in a city under siege by barbarians. You're enjoying city
life by knocking the walls down from inside - 'just to see how they were
built'.


Oh come on. That's nonsense.



--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:27:08 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

I would. We live in a city under siege by barbarians. You're enjoying city
life by knocking the walls down from inside - 'just to see how they were
built'.


Oh come on. That's just nonsense.


--

..andy


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