Creationists going after the "atomic model"...

[Quasi]

As always there is no proof, just like there is no proof of evolution, or no proof of "no deity".

There is only a preponderance of evidence.

I object to the "evolution" remark. Anyone on earth can replicate the experiments done to discover that evolution is real, and based on the results must reach the same conclusion as the original scientists because the evidence is not ambiguous taken as a whole. Further there does not exist an alternative explanation for life on earth, given the evidence.
As for no proof of no deity bit, yes I agree. But that is in of itself a circular argument. As Karl Popper stated, circular arguments have no value whatsoever because you can never know anything further than there is no evidence there is no God/God exists. Question, how do you know about the concept of God in the first place- someone told you so. Beliefs are learned behaviors. Many humans have accepted the God concept 100% based on someone merely saying it exists (including the Bible.) Given that the deity theory has no value, why bother debating a circular argument? Why believe in it anyway? It can have no practical, moral, or ethical implications in your life. If you are a moral person you will act so regardless of your belief in circular arguments. This depends on not only your genes, but upbringing and the choices you make in life. If you are a sociopath you are likely to be an evil, conspiring person, regardless of your circular beliefs or upbringing. If you were not raised well, you may also be a sleaze. This is the classical argument: Why should people believe in circular arguments at all (religion etc.)?

 

[jj]

I object to the "evolution" remark. Anyone on earth can replicate the experiments done to discover that evolution is real, and based on the results must reach the same conclusion as the original scientists because the evidence is not ambiguous taken as a whole.

Why are you objecting?

You just agreed with me that the preponderance of evidence lies gigantically on the side of evolutionary theory.

And, no, I don't have to reach exactly the same results as other scientists. In my own field, I've been there, done that, won the debate.

(But this does not mean I would argue against evolution, that's not my field of research, and besides, all I would argue there would be specifics, which are very much open to discussion.)

 

[Quasi]

I will try to clarify:

I will agree that in a scientific construct, nothing is 100 proven, however science continues toward, perhaps, some fundamental truths might be found, although that may never happen. In a philosophical context, if one considers the "no God" proof vs the "evolution" proof, you are comparing a circular argument to one which is not. Evolution is falsifiable, metaphysical concepts such as God are not.
If you are speaking from the solipist perspective then evolution/santa clause/John Edwards are all on the same level of proof and are equally probable, as they are formed by you and not entities in their own right.
And herein lies my point: the philosophy that nothing can be proven, and that solipism is an equal belief system to science is just plain wrong, as Karl Popper pointed out.
An example:
Psychotherapy based on Id, Ego, or Superego or other metaphysical concepts do not work nearly as well as Cognitive Therapy, which is based on scientific principles.

 

[jj]

IIn a philosophical context, if one considers the "no God" proof vs the "evolution" proof, you are comparing a circular argument to one which is not. Evolution is falsifiable, metaphysical concepts such as God are not.


I will agree that the statement "evolution never occurs" is not only falsifiable but also falsified. We (mankind) have observed it.

However, the statement "evolution is all there is" is falsifiable, but is not proven, and can not be, because that would require proof of a negative assertion. So my point is that we can never have absolute proof, and that insisting on absolute proof is roughly the same as denying the existance of knowledge.

This is not to say that there is any evidence whatsoever for anything else BUT evolution, mind you...

Personally I do cheerfully drop Occam on people who give us stuff like what I call 'tautological creationism', i.e. "god set it up to make it look like evolution did it all, even though we were just created this morning". That's not proof, though, that's simply a statement that I think the parsomonious reasoning is usually better when there is no contrary evidence.


And herein lies my point: the philosophy that nothing can be proven, and that solipism is an equal belief system to science is just plain wrong, as Karl Popper pointed out.

I hope you're not thinking I disagree with that statement. Perhaps, though, we need to discuss the meaning of "proven" vs. "plausible"?

An example:
Psychotherapy based on Id, Ego, or Superego or other metaphysical concepts do not work nearly as well as Cognitive Therapy, which is based on scientific principles.

I won't speak for cognative therapy because I haven't studied it well enough to know if it can measureably affect brain chemistry in appropriate fashions. Fraudianism is not science, we agree. Of there was ever a call for a DBT, well ... (and I'm leaving out all the Victorian/etc baggage that came along with it. Hysteria my (*(*&)

 

[hammegk]

Ultimately, is there an alternative? The basis of your "what-is" is just as much of an assumption as mine. The difference is, science, when it finds a flaw in its assumptions seeks to correct it, no matter how basic. Are you willing to discount your most basic premise, "I think" if it turns out to be so? (As if you could, if it is not)

Note the problem here, for you. *I* think remains no matter what assumptions are made, or not made.

No, hammegk. You can not have it both ways. You either say what you mean or make me interpret, but don't get upset if I interpret you what you mean incorrectly. You said, "perhaps always indetectable." If that bothers you than say what you mean.

Damn semantics .....

And you're 100% certain of that ["I think"], are you?

Can you tell, with 100% certainty, that you are thinking rather than being under the illusion that you are thinking?

It seems to me you aren't 100% certain that you are thinking, are you?

Ya got me there. All I can say with 100% certainty is that *I* think, or that *I think* is The Solipsist .... "thinking".

Really? My beliefs on the matter are irrelevent.

A rather strange stance ... what is relevant if not what YOU think?

I have to run. I will finish later.

Please do.....

As I have said before, one must reject ultimate solipcism in order to conclude that anything external exists.

That has to be done at least partly on faith, either a simple rejection on faith, or faith that one is not insane enough to imagine either you or the obvious inconsistancy of human beings .

We agree on the faith aspect required to reject solipsism, but disagree that that allows the conclusion that "an objective external world exists independent in itself".

On the other hand, once past that rejection, it's very hard to argue against the scientific method.

I don't argue with the scientific method. I only point out that agnosticism -- in ALL things -- is the most logical stance.

 

[the_ignored]

As long as we're playing semantics...

Well, as long as we're playing with semantics and interpretations:

(of course, part of the humor is that here, the IDist actually has provided Positive Evidence of his belief!)

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:

Ya got me there. All I can say with 100% certainty is that *I* think, or that *I think* is The Solipsist .... "thinking".

I'm not sure you can say "I think." The thinking could be an illusion, just like my head or the wall that I'm banging it against. I think the most you can say is that I am an agent available to the illusionist.

~~Paul

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Re: As long as we're playing semantics...

Well, as long as we're playing with semantics and interpretations:


(of course, part of the humor is that here, the IDist actually has provided Positive Evidence of his belief!)

Bob! I enjoy. I had the fortune of meeting the cartoonist and having a few beers with him several years ago. I am pleased that he is having so much success with his comic.

 

[jj]

Okay. So, hammegk doesn't have the balls to explicitely state what he thinks. Since I'm forced to interpret his statements, the one above implies that the reason he has no balls whatsoever is because he knows his philisophical stance is extremely weak and can't stand up to scrutiny.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up, "hammie"

I've had the same problem. He won't state HIS opinion, he simply hangs out to deny those of others. When asked for substance, he waffles, weaves, and relies on his ultimate solipcism.

 

[hammegk]

I've had the same problem. He won't state HIS opinion, he simply hangs out to deny those of others. When asked for substance, he waffles, weaves, and relies on his ultimate solipcism.

Sorry, bubby; if there is A Solipsist it must be you, not *I*.

As to unanswered questions:

What was your response to my earlier comment "the choice is either/or in that the Discourses of Stimpy -- for me -- rule out dualism as a logical possibility. (Win says otherwise, but I've never understood his logic.)"?

I must've missed your thoughts here.


Continuing:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillHoyt

The essential problem is your absolutist position about certainty. I make no claims to 100% certainty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hgc

hammy's magic *I* makes its appearence.

This is his real agenda; that there's no objective reality. Everything he argues is meant to shoehorn into this delusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hammegk: "Your choice is, *you* exist: ergo you think. Yes, I choose the alternative. (Again, with *I* think -- to me -- a tautology.)

Who has an absolutist problem?"

And repeating, "Who are the absolutists?".

 

[Upchurch]

I've totally lost track of this thread, but here goes:

Note the problem here, for you. *I* think remains no matter what assumptions are made, or not made.

Au contraire, "*I* think" may remain, but it remains only as an assumption and as one that has yet to be either validated or disproven.

Ya got me there. All I can say with 100% certainty is that *I* think, or that *I think* is The Solipsist .... "thinking".

False Dillema. There are other possibilities that do not require hammegk nor a lone Solipsist (sp?) out there in the aether thinking. How can you be 100% (or is it 50%?) sure that a solipst is out there thinking "hammegk thinks"?

Really? My beliefs on the matter are irrelevent.

A rather strange stance ... what is relevant if not what YOU think?

It is irrelevent, because your point is that you are 100% sure that "I [hammegk] thnk" not whether "Upchurch thinks".

Please do.....

m'kay. Going back a bit....

And you are missing the forest looking at trees.

Oh, hammegk. I'm glad you made me go back and finish this thought. Otherwise, I would have missed this jewel of hypocracy. You chide me for missing the point by getting bogged down in the details, missing the forest for the trees, as it were. But your very argument is science is missing information at the minute level and, therefore, science itself is flawed. In essense, this entire discussion has been centered on the trees validating the forest, not the validity of the forest despite the trees. Remember when you said:

It is your contention that because science is still exploring or has yet to explain one phenomenon, it's entire basis is therefore unreliable despite its great success in other areas? Since you've told me to go ahead and make inferences from your statements, let's say that is your contention.

In a sense that is correct. About 110yrs ago, 2 tiny clouds existed: Michaelson-Morley & blackbody radiation. Today we have:
The Quark Containment problem, and field strength increasing with distance… that is the obverse to the electron-excluded-from-nucleus-problem which can be “predicted” by assigning quantum numbers. Not much of an “explanation” in my mind. Do those orbit “jumps” occur ftl, or just within the now-believed-impenetrable veil of Planck time?

And now you have the hypocracy to complain that I am analyzing the details of your argument rather than simply accepting it for what it is?

Regardless, you have still have a couple of unaddressed fallacies (the points that prompted your "forest for the trees" statement) hanging over your head that you need to address at some point.

Logical thinking starting with incorrect premises is worthless.

But you have, at no time, shown that any premise of science is incorrect nor that science has a systemic problem that renders it invalid.

[the remaining 3% is] there as that also currently impenetrable mystery “energy”.

Given that I must extrapolate your meanings, you are saying "The remaining 3% of the universe is made of dark energy", even though earlier you said that "the universe is 96% dark matter/energy". Which would imply that you believe that 99% of the universe is made of dark matter/energy, despite the best estimates by scientist.

And here I thought I’d said 96% dark matter/energy & less than 1% “matter”. Hmm. The remainder is “energy”.

whoo boy, I wish you would keep up. There are so many errors here, I'm not sure where to begin.

First, the term "dark mass/energy" refers to an mass/energy that has yet to be explored and is, thus, a mystery. To refer to the remaining 3% as "mysterious energy" is to place it under the category of "dark energy", thus the 99% dark mass/energy. Second, the subject of energy is not mysterious in any way. It is the single most studied concept in physics, if not science in general. Third, mass and energy are the same thing. You not understanding dosen't mean that scientists don't understand it and took that into account when they came up with the approx. 90% dark matter figure.

You're statement that "what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%" is blatently incorrect, mathematically. Thus, the Fallacy of Mathematical Error is there, as I said.

Did you say math IS reality?

I absolutely did not say that mathematics is reality. Mathematics describe reality. It is the most descriptive language we have for describing and predicting the behavior of reality.

And you consider this to be a systemic problem rather than specific problems? What leads you to this conclusion? The mere existence of yet unanswered questions? Can you elaborate on your reasons for this conclusion?

I consider the three areas I’ve mentioned crucial problems for Materialists – those who state that science will provide ALL answers, or at least that questions not answerable by science are meaningless. Like “life” at one level, morality at another.

"And you are missing the forest looking at trees."

roll: Couldn't resist)

This is a blatent straw man. Who has said that science will provide answers to the abstract concept that arise from the human condition?

Secondly, how do you know it won't just because it hasn't yet? I'm not saying that it will, but how do you know that it can not?

Again, you've not shown that unanswered questions is a systemic problem of science, only that there are specific yet unsolved questions.

Materialists must state that science is the only truth; Science does not state that materialism is the only answer.

Another straw man fallacy. I never said that it was. I was mearly refuting your claim that science is faulty because there were unanswered questions.

Well, we agree the world of perception continues to demonstrate that attribute. And you feel you “understand” it. I’m not quite so comfortable that I do, but will point out that Idealism offers possible solutions materialism must rule out.

So, you must ask yourself, is your lack of trust in science based in a fundamental problem with science or your inability to understand it? I doubt you fully understand what the premises of science are since you can not explain to me why it is flawed.

Comparatively, how often has it been independently verified that "I [hammegk] think"?

Either I do, or you ARE The Solipsist.

False Dillema again, hammegk, but I'll take that to mean that it's never been idependently verified that "I [hammegk] think".

BTW, thanks for providing some interesting questions. I appreciate it. Have *you* thought them through?[/b]

To some extent, but that is aside from the actual point of the thread.

 

[Upchurch]

bumping for hammegk.

 

[Diamond]

Can I point out that "dark matter" is a hypothesis to explain certain experimental and observational results, as is dark energy? Since they have never been directly observed, they can and should be viewed as placeholders for missing knowledge, which may or may not be true or valid.

 

[Upchurch]

Can I point out that "dark matter" is a hypothesis to explain certain experimental and observational results, as is dark energy? Since they have never been directly observed, they can and should be viewed as placeholders for missing knowledge, which may or may not be true or valid.

Yup. But that's hammegk's point: We don't know what that missing *whatever* is and therefore, science itself is fundamentally flawed. I disagree.

 

[Dancing David]

Whats missing is any alternative explanation! Science is an iterative process of explanation.

There is no 'absolute' truth to be had by science and I think that some find the relatavist stance unerving. Since it is just a decription of otherwise random events there is no ultimate purpose.

There is no Cause to be explained, there is no Meaning to be explained. Enjoy life folks, thats about it.

 

[Dorman]

Dark matter

Originally posted by hammegk
Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

If ``dark matter'' exists, it has to be a part of ``matter'' as used by science, by definition. This ``dark matter'' interacts with the visible matter -- it exerts a gravitational force. And therefore, it should come under the catagory of ``matter'' anyway.

 

[hammegk]

I've totally lost track of this thread, but here goes:

Er, yeah. I still may get into attacking the atomic model, even if I'm not a creationist.

Au contraire, "*I* think" may remain, but it remains only as an assumption and as one that has yet to be either validated or disproven.

You believe you "know" anything with more certainty than that *you* think? How?

False Dillema. There are other possibilities that do not require hammegk nor a lone Solipsist (sp?) out there in the aether thinking. How can you be 100% (or is it 50%?) sure that a solipst is out there thinking "hammegk thinks"?

The tautology that *I* think, or conversely *Ithink* is the thought of another seem apparent. What other "possibility" do you suggest? (Remember, *I* think all of us homo saps -- & probably all "life" "thinks".)

It is irrelevent, because your point is that you are 100% sure that "I [hammegk] thnk" not whether "Upchurch thinks".

A strange position. You intend to live your life according to "hammegk" thinking? Weird!

Oh, hammegk. I'm glad you made me go back and finish this thought. ....your very argument is science is missing information at the minute level and, therefore, science itself is flawed. In essense, this entire discussion has been centered on the trees validating the forest, not the validity of the forest despite the trees. Remember when you said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a sense that is correct. About 110yrs ago, 2 tiny clouds existed: Michaelson-Morley & blackbody radiation. Today we have:
The Quark Containment problem, and field strength increasing with distance… that is the obverse to the electron-excluded-from-nucleus-problem which can be “predicted” by assigning quantum numbers. Not much of an “explanation” in my mind. Do those orbit “jumps” occur ftl, or just within the now-believed-impenetrable veil of Planck time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now you have the hypocracy to complain that I am analyzing the details of your argument rather than simply accepting it for what it is?

Regarding "matter", the closer we look at it the less of it there is -- nothin' here but empty space -- which is the forest & which is the tree?

But you have, at no time, shown that any premise of science is incorrect nor that science has a systemic problem that renders it invalid.

The one we are discussing is that "objective reality exists" -- your subjective judgement.

whoo boy, I wish you would keep up. There are so many errors here, I'm not sure where to begin.

96+3+1=100 is too tough to follow? The original comment I made was from an article in the Rocky Mtn News (Denver) of 2-3 weeks ago.

Second, the subject of energy is not mysterious in any way. It is the single most studied concept in physics, if not science in general. Third, mass and energy are the same thing. You not understanding dosen't mean that scientists don't understand it and took that into account when they came up with the approx. 90% dark matter figure

At last, a man who is going to define "energy" for me. Is a photon mass, or energy? Various flavors of neutrinos? etcetc.

You're statement that "what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%" is blatently incorrect, mathematically. Thus, the Fallacy of Mathematical Error is there, as I said.

Umm, no.

I absolutely did not say that mathematics is reality. Mathematics describe reality. It is the most descriptive language we have for describing and predicting the behavior of reality.

What sort of "matter" do we use to make math? Will math cease to exist if homo sap disappears?

hammegk quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materialists must state that science is the only truth; Science does not state that materialism is the only answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another straw man fallacy. I never said that it was. I was mearly refuting your claim that science is faulty because there were unanswered questions.

You dislike the implication of your stance?

So, you must ask yourself, is your lack of trust in science based in a fundamental problem with science or your inability to understand it? I doubt you fully understand what the premises of science are since you can not explain to me why it is flawed.

Or you could discuss Quark Bonding.

Comparatively, how often has it been independently verified that "I [hammegk] think"?

My worry is not with the "independently". Is yours?

To some extent, but that is aside from the actual point of the thread.

Hmm, so you do intend to live henceforth using my thoughts? How will you do that?

Originally posted by Dorman

If ``dark matter'' exists, it has to be a part of ``matter'' as used by science, by definition. This ``dark matter'' interacts with the visible matter -- it exerts a gravitational force. And therefore, it should come under the catagory of ``matter'' anyway.

So true. Why does Science currently refer to it as "dark matter"? By the Stimpy definition it is just plain old "matter", right?

Or, as Diamond points out, may not have existence in any case.

 

[Dancing David]

Whats wrong with quark bonding?

The fact that it is a hyperbolic inverse is no suprise, we have attraction and repulsion for electrons and protons, why should it be suprising that there is another force that appears to be merely attractive.

Is it a problem that there is less energy the closer the quarks are?Maybe quarks are just very social and they can't be alone. Or the whole universe pushes them together.

Gravity is very similar. But it does not get stronger as the masses seperate.

The real problem is that quarks are always hidden and thereofre they are really just hypothetical constructs, they can be devided out, so in a reductionist sense they will always be just a theory.

There is a simple solution hamme, there is only energy, there is no matter, there is only energy.

It doesn't need to be defined to be useful, there doesn't need to be an ultimate cause, we have approximate cause and that is the scientific method.

 

[hammegk]

Whats wrong with quark bonding?

The fact that it is a hyperbolic inverse is no suprise, we have attraction and repulsion for electrons and protons, why should it be suprising that there is another force that appears to be merely attractive.

Is it a problem that there is less energy the closer the quarks are?Maybe quarks are just very social and they can't be alone. Or the whole universe pushes them together.

Your last sentence points to the "problem". You say the energy source is outside pushing in (as a possibility anyway); goodo, where does outside end & bound-quarks begin? Are we somewhere in n-space? You are the materialist needing space to have matter in if either of us are.

"Merely attractive" has nothing to do with it imo.

Gravity is very similar. But it does not get stronger as the masses seperate.

Yup, and inverse square laws do make some modicum of sense.

There is a simple solution hamme, there is only energy, there is no matter, there is only energy.

I tend to agree. Now, where does "life" begin? What did you say a quark is?

 

[Dancing David]

I say that a quark is a useful concept that maybe related to reality or it may not.

I tend to set the bar low for life, organisms capable of reproduction and replication.

Space is around us, the confusing question is why three dimensions?

Classical explanations fell apart and that led the the modern quantum stuuf, Plank was not real happy with it either.