tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post7592450199406859904..comments2023-12-11T08:49:46.305+00:00Comments on Dizzy Thinks: What's wrong with classical rationalism?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-89155329860985604142008-09-12T19:22:00.000+01:002008-09-12T19:22:00.000+01:00But who is intellectually dishonest? Is it not Pal...But who is intellectually dishonest? Is it not Palin? She is playing to a particular crowd to get their votes. She is a politician inside and out.Miss Snuffleupagushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13107304044851607450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-79913032558120327932008-09-12T19:04:00.000+01:002008-09-12T19:04:00.000+01:00Some one above said, "Evolution is a FACT. End of ...Some one above said, "Evolution is a FACT. End of story". Well, presumably he doesn't think the subject worth discussing.<BR/>A point underlying all this which intrigues me: Where do we get our notion of the Universe, i.e. that there is one unified system governed by regular laws working throughout - rather than a multiplicity of systems? Is that a legacy of religious belief? In a very broad sense, may a doctrine of creation underly our whole approach to scientific enquiry - was it an essential step, a ladder which we no longer need?Little Black Sambohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699227938165106710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-37113247392209958202008-09-12T14:01:00.000+01:002008-09-12T14:01:00.000+01:00Dave, that has made me think of a great Socrates p...Dave, that has made me think of a great Socrates paraphrase. Wisest is he who knows he does know.dizzyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250325010662356883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-39825690416184205812008-09-12T14:00:00.000+01:002008-09-12T14:00:00.000+01:00With the honourable exception of Archimedes and Ne...With the honourable exception of Archimedes and Newton and one or two others, most scientists get it wrong.<BR/>When Darwin was putting forward his THEORY yes theory, the accepted belief among scientists was that space (the distance between the planets and stars) was full of a jelly like substance that they called "the ether". They came to this conclusion based on observation and the evidence available.<BR/>We may now laugh at this but this was accepted as fact until the end of the 19th century.<BR/>Please keep your mind open to the possibility that Darwinists and Creationists can both be wrong!<BR/>We don't know- and God ain't telling!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00448711775318691029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-56945716242498250622008-09-12T09:35:00.000+01:002008-09-12T09:35:00.000+01:00Please note that it is not a poor defence. It is a...Please note that it is not a poor defence. It is a piss poor defence :)dizzyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250325010662356883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-14092116251955948392008-09-12T09:22:00.000+01:002008-09-12T09:22:00.000+01:00Bugger. Mea culpa. :)In my poor defence, I guess w...Bugger. Mea culpa. :)<BR/><BR/>In my poor defence, I guess what I am saying is based on the defintion of "alongside". i.e. alongside as beside but not as an alternative theory, rather than alongside as an alternative. See Freaky Friday post.dizzyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250325010662356883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-37359663541850858302008-09-12T09:03:00.000+01:002008-09-12T09:03:00.000+01:00"I didn't say actually say that ID/Classical ratio..."I didn't say actually say that ID/Classical rationalism should be taught alongside Darwin."<BR/><BR/>"Even more so, what is wrong with teaching Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero et al in schools alongside Darwin?"<BR/><BR/>??tory boys never grow uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11172736984147732661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-17228521815015140032008-09-12T08:36:00.000+01:002008-09-12T08:36:00.000+01:00@mr jabberwock"Someone said "Yes, science is about...@mr jabberwock<BR/><BR/>"Someone said "Yes, science is about what is falsifiable, but that fact that something could be falsifiable does not mean that it can be proved to be false."<BR/><BR/>Sorry but that is precisely what it does mean. If it can't be proved false it is not (in the Popper sense) science."<BR/><BR/>That someone was me, and I don't think I explained that particularly well.<BR/><BR/>What I mean is that, to use the black cats analogy, if you have a black cat, and the theory goes that all cats are black, you can falsify the theory (understanding of cats) by producing a white cat, but you cannot falsify the black cat itself.<BR/><BR/>The black cat still exists, whether you like it or not, they don't just vanish into thin air when you produce a white cat, and they don't all turn white when you produce a white cat. What you end up with is an extension to the general theory of cats.<BR/><BR/>However, what proponents of creationism / ID want is to falsify the fact of evolution, so that it does vanish, not to just falsify the theory - or aspects of the theory of evolution, which is the model that explains the fact.<BR/><BR/>Even if, one day, Hawking proves Newtonian mechanics to be completely wrong, gravity will still exist, just our understanding will have changed. Just like our understanding of Thunder (it's not a sky pixie with a big fuck off hammer!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-57634547185700523832008-09-12T08:21:00.000+01:002008-09-12T08:21:00.000+01:00TBNGU - I didn't say actually say that ID/Classica...TBNGU - I didn't say actually say that ID/Classical rationalism should be taught alongside Darwin. What I said was that both should be taught and both should come together anyway as part of getting kids heads around what science is. (am posting a follow up in a minute). <BR/><BR/>Re: Tory Boy thing, not wound up by it, just wondered who and what it referred too.<BR/><BR/>Gareth, you said <B><I>BUT, there is no reason to assume there are other colours of cats, and by proving that there is another colour of cat does NOT falsify the existence of the black cats, it only adds to the general theory of cats.</I></B><BR/><BR/>I didn't say it did falsify the existence of black cats. I said that it falsifies the assertion that all cats are black.dizzyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250325010662356883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-70897047854442911472008-09-11T23:03:00.000+01:002008-09-11T23:03:00.000+01:00I think the problem here is that Sarah Palin comes...I think the problem here is that Sarah Palin comes from a religious society where the negotiation between orthodoxies of religious meaning and science are a little more torturous than secular Brits experience .<BR/> A belief in god , is , or so I have come to believe , at least as rational a position as a non belief in god and yet there is paradoxically no place for this in the ‘rationalist’ universe. There is equally no place for any number of beliefs held by people like Ruth Kelly ,Muslim Peers and , apparently , every PM up to David Milliband who , god forbid , will be the first atheist . It is not in practice a problem <BR/>As religions develop they often have an ability to be understood on many levels . Bertrand Russel for example was agnostic not atheist despite his blistering philosophical attack on Christianity . The existence of a soul has no place in a rational universe .Yet without such an idea or some equally irrational metaphysics why exactly do we not eat our relatives when they die rather than bury them. What rational reason is there for the existence of loyalty ., love , and what we know to be the most important things in our lives . None I can see and as Dawkins said, we can happily consider the animal organisms as if such things did not exist. He has nothing to say .All human traditions try to deal with this wider and deeper questions though and not through science .<BR/> You might say , ok well in that case keep out of science . The truth is they do which is why the US is not lagging in evolutionary biology due to an odd belief in the literal existence of Adam and Eve ( as if ). There is still a problem with the particular religious tradition of the states developing as it did form the book and a return to the book from the “Lies “ of the church . That happens to be the tradition and culture of the States but it has a deep and connected life intertwined with individualism ,personal morality and many good things emanating from non conformist Protestantism<BR/><BR/>The reason why you might justify a seemingly illogical rule of structure belief in such a context is a bit complex but you might argue by analogy that the triangle player in a romantic symphony goes ‘ting ‘when he is told to and by doing so participates in a glory beyond him. How would a character in a book understand the author ? Not by looking about but by an attemopt to be beyond his limits...a mystical endevour. English Protestantism lost much of this element and we often misunderstand the American equivalent <BR/>None of the criticism of Sarah Palin`s beliefs make this crucial step , they are mystical and part of an attempt to approach god .I accept its sincerity and move on personally . <BR/><BR/><BR/>Ahem..I have swallowed more than I can chew , my point is this .We are wrong to judge Sarah Palin both on guns and god because we see only the end point of both a spiritual and political development and transpose it into ours . She and religious-America should be accorded the same tolerance and respect we accord other religious countries not unreasonably asking them to ditch their identities for our benefit and not assuming that we know best by snatching one or two de conceptualised snippets and holding them up to our light .<BR/><BR/><BR/> Having said all that there is a special antagonism between Christianity and Darwin and I accept it bears watching .<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>PS Oh God I am boring...I only popped in to say Martin Bright seems to be answering anyone who comments on his blog <BR/>http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/brights-blog<BR/><BR/>Quite interestingNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-41680256802285136002008-09-11T22:27:00.000+01:002008-09-11T22:27:00.000+01:00Someone said "Yes, science is about what is falsif...Someone said "Yes, science is about what is falsifiable, but that fact that something could be falsifiable does not mean that it can be proved to be false."<BR/><BR/>Sorry but that is precisely what it does mean. If it can't be proved false it is not (in the Popper sense) science.<BR/><BR/>Of course there is knowledge that is valid and not science, the fact that there are an infinite number of primes is not scientific; but is certainly true and can not be falsified. The fact that Mozart produced sublime music is not falsifiable but is meaningful in a way at least as good as that a Higgs Boson would be<BR/><BR/>I am happy that survival of the fittest is axiomatic I an not clear what set of circumstances would lead to the evolution of a butterfly but that could well be my ignorance. (which I would love to remove)<BR/><BR/>By the way Dizzy that is the best post that I know of in he blogosphere - though that is a falsifiable statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-17889689349138154032008-09-11T19:58:00.000+01:002008-09-11T19:58:00.000+01:00Intelligent Design of the origin of life is a poss...Intelligent Design of the origin of life is a possibility that can honestly be mentioned in a philosophy or even science class. I personally believe that evolution explains the spread and variety of life but not its origins. Dawkins' "anthropic principle" of life's origins is appealing but not conclusive so ID can legitimately pitch its tent on this topic.<BR/><BR/><BR/>However, anyone who says "There is an Intelligent Designer and here's how you can meet Him" should be kept as far away from children as possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-46411376572332930482008-09-11T19:56:00.000+01:002008-09-11T19:56:00.000+01:00I think one of my posts got lost in the ether."For...I think one of my posts got lost in the ether.<BR/><BR/>"For example, if you observe cats for your entire life and all of them are black, it does not follow that all cats are blacks, however much your observation provide the "evidence" that they do."<BR/><BR/>BUT, there is no reason to assume there are other colours of cats, and by proving that there is another colour of cat does NOT falsify the existence of the black cats, it only adds to the general theory of cats.<BR/><BR/>The black cats (gravity, evolution) still physically exist, and producing a white cat (god) does not mean that the black cats disappear and vanish. But, that is exactly what creationists / IDers want with evolution. Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. Our explanations of those facts are the theories.<BR/><BR/>On your basis of thought I should assume there is a whole menagerie of invisible pink creatures living in my flat. I have no evidence for it at all, but, clearly, that doesn't matter. Where did I put the pet food?<BR/><BR/>You seem to be strangling yourself up with on the idea of evidence. Discovering new evidence does not necessarily (and in fact, rarely) means previous evidence is false. It just adds to the understanding, or changes the understanding of the natural phenomena you are observing.<BR/><BR/>When science realised that thunder wasn't caused by Thor (or one of the other thunder gods in the world), and was caused by the explosion of the atmosphere local to a discharge of static electricity, it didn't mean that all of the evidence for thunder itself changed at all. Just the understanding of it. <BR/><BR/>You say just because the earth has been rotating for 4.3bn years, doesn't mean it will rotate tomorrow. Well, actually it does, unless something stops it. Because the earth IS rotating. It can't just stop, unless something - a force - stops it.<BR/><BR/>And we can define what that something is, and maybe even work out the probability of it happening (it would probably mean having an entirely different, completely symmetrical solar system with the earth stuck in the middle).<BR/><BR/>So yes, the sun will rise tomorrow!<BR/><BR/>Evidence doesn't change. Understanding of evidence changes.<BR/><BR/>Whether the Higgs particle / field exists or not does not change the fact that some particles have mass, and some don't.<BR/><BR/>(I was anonymous before, but not the creationist one, obviously)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-84585758872671036472008-09-11T19:28:00.000+01:002008-09-11T19:28:00.000+01:00Sarah Palin is a nutjob hypocrite. The 'honeymoon...Sarah Palin is a nutjob hypocrite. The 'honeymoon' will end shortly for Palin. And all this swooning over her will die down. <BR/><BR/>Either that or Americans are idiots.<BR/><BR/>:)<BR/><BR/>It's an old fashioned culture war.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-67826696094404767712008-09-11T18:30:00.000+01:002008-09-11T18:30:00.000+01:00ID is nothing more than an attempt to get Christia...ID is nothing more than an attempt to get Christianity taught in US schools, and arose out of the Creation Science movement in the US. <BR/>The debate as to its scientific merits is part of the 'teach the controversy' tactic by ID proponents. It seeks to put ID on the same footing as Darwinian theories of evolution and thus give it a gloss of respectability.<BR/> Many of the proponents of ID have claimed it is scientific, but when challenged to suggest ways of testing ID scientifically (as you suggest) they have been unable to suggest anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-42646728115991918512008-09-11T18:23:00.000+01:002008-09-11T18:23:00.000+01:00Hardly a straw man - look at what you said - your ...Hardly a straw man - look at what you said - your argument was ID/Classical rationalism should be taught alongside Darwin. If it is being taught in Science lessons then it should be subject to the same scientific methods. And while on the subject of scientific method, If you look at what I said I didn't fall for the old chestnut of proving theories - and specifically asked for evidence that disproved Darwinism.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I've no problem at all with both philosophy and science being taught in schools (and even both together where they coincide e.g. in understanding what is science and what isn't (i'd support this even more for economics teaching) - but given as you say ID cannot be subject to testing by evidence then science lessons are not the place for it to be discussed. <BR/><BR/>As for being a Tory Boy - you are clearly of the Tory persuasion and (like all of us) you have your childish moments - but nothing wrong with either. As for never growing up - the original handle was because there are an awful lot of male Tory bloggers who seem to be stuck philosophically (could never be scientifically) and politically with Mrs Thatcher and her ilk - do you want to wear that cap? But its all a very old joke and as a self professed wind up merchant you shouldn't be wound up so easily. Believe it or not I tend to believe that advancement in most things comes through listening to those you disagree with.tory boys never grow uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11172736984147732661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-84135681950414847702008-09-11T17:39:00.000+01:002008-09-11T17:39:00.000+01:00Charlotte Gore.I'm afraid you're confusing 'Faith'...Charlotte Gore.<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid you're confusing 'Faith' or 'Religion' with the 'Church' in your position on the US government and education (amongst other things).<BR/><BR/><BR/>The Founding Fathers insisted on the separation of Church and State as they, for the most part, came from the non-established Christian religions of Britain, Holland etc.<BR/><BR/>The separation was entirely pragmatic and designed to ensure the disparate expressions of the Christian faith could be accommodated within the fragile Republic that was emerging from the 13 colonies.<BR/><BR/>It was nothing to do with side-lining Christianity as they were, for the most part, devout Christians.<BR/><BR/>They, and most current politicians, believed in a Christian God and saw no conflict between asking "God to Bless America" and keeping an established Church out of politics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-4939623365220300642008-09-11T17:31:00.000+01:002008-09-11T17:31:00.000+01:00Incidnetally, TBNGU, am I a "Tory Boy" in your min...Incidnetally, TBNGU, am I a "Tory Boy" in your mind, and have I never grown up? The question has been bugging me for some time.dizzyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250325010662356883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-31436464653858630632008-09-11T17:30:00.000+01:002008-09-11T17:30:00.000+01:00Just because eminent scientists and philosophers h...<B><I>Just because eminent scientists and philosophers have but forward hypotheses/theories in the past - it does mean that they should still be taught in schools, regardless of whether or not those hypotheses/theories have been disproved or not, as you appear to be arguing.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Why is it you always enter threads with a straw man? I am not arguing that at all, what I am arguing is the the history of ideas is important, and that they form quite a crucial understanding of not just critical thinking but also Hegelian links upon each other.<BR/><BR/><B><I>I'm happy to accept that ID is different from Creationism, its advocates had to develop another hypothesis when the evidence did not support Creationism - but where is the evidence to support the new/very old hypothesis??</I></B><BR/><BR/>See you've missed the point, or possibly just misunderstood it. ID and/or creationism cannot provide "evidence" because there is no way of testing them. You;re also using this concept of evidence again which is misplaced. The evidence of any scientific theory is based upon the number of times it has failed to be disproved, not the number of times one can observe its "proof". You're mistaking classical empiricism for truth here.<BR/><BR/>For example, if you observe cats for your entire life and all of them are black, it does not follow that all cats are blacks, however much your observation provide the "evidence" that they do. <BR/><BR/>Now take ID and ask yourself this. What test could you carry out that could disprove ID? Think carefully about that, a test that fails to disprove evoutionary theory is not evidence that ID, which has an <I>a priori</I> existence prior to evolution, is not true. <BR/><BR/>As there is no way of testing to disprove ID then there can be no evidence to either support or deny. That is why it is not scientific, but it is a rationally produced. That is as good a reason as any to explor these things ins chools because they enable critical thinking upon what the nature of enquiry is, not just the nature of being.dizzyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250325010662356883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-89346048751495233062008-09-11T17:17:00.000+01:002008-09-11T17:17:00.000+01:00Just because eminent scientists and philosophers h...Just because eminent scientists and philosophers have but forward hypotheses/theories in the past - it does mean that they should still be taught in schools, regardless of whether or not those hypotheses/theories have been disproved or not, as you appear to be arguing. <BR/><BR/>The nature of scientists/philosophers is often that they put up some pretty goofy theories which are subsequently proven wrong - look at Newton among all the good stuff didn't he spend most of his time trying to practice alchemy. <BR/><BR/>I'm happy to accept that ID is different from Creationism, its advocates had to develop another hypothesis when the evidence did not support Creationism - but where is the evidence to support the new/very old hypothesis?? Or the evidence that challenges Darwinism.tory boys never grow uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11172736984147732661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-82193895398882698172008-09-11T17:11:00.000+01:002008-09-11T17:11:00.000+01:00I would have no problem with a child of mine benig...I would have no problem with a child of mine benig taught about creationist or Intellgient Design ideas (the distinction I beleive is not worth much thought, ID is at best a wing of creationism) in some kind of general studies or religious education setting. Always useful to know and understand what other people think.<BR/><BR/>But crucially, it should be nowhere near a science class and I suspect that is the kind of thing Palin is after. <BR/><BR/>Also IDers tend to just be trying to give creationism a scientific sheen to fool the easily confused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-73674026615972542482008-09-11T15:32:00.000+01:002008-09-11T15:32:00.000+01:00Haddock: No I didn't but you have emphasised how ...Haddock: No I didn't but you have emphasised how the scientific method can be twisted.<BR/><BR/>Nobody denies that <I>something</I> is happening to the weather around the planet. That is the fact. The <I>theory</I> that it is man-made is the best explanation that we have. Like all scientific theories is it subject to modifications, or even, if evidence arises to refute it, discarded. <BR/><BR/>Having said that I personnaly object at the political (not necessarily scientific) witch-hunts that have occured against scientists who have queried parts of the current theory of global warming.Bonetiredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03758749688525988504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-71608966839915306032008-09-11T15:06:00.000+01:002008-09-11T15:06:00.000+01:00bonetired. "Evolution is a FACT. End of story. The...bonetired.<BR/><BR/> "Evolution is a FACT. End of story. The evidence for it is huge, massive AND incontrovertible"<BR/><BR/>did you take this from another debate and change MMGW to evolution ?..... that line of 'debate' is so familiar.haddockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01890864334999930139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-30779217781382747792008-09-11T14:49:00.000+01:002008-09-11T14:49:00.000+01:00I wouldn't consider Enlightenment rationalists "su...I wouldn't consider Enlightenment rationalists "supersticious". The ideas and arguments they put forward a fundamnetal part of the history of ideas.dizzyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04250325010662356883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22202011.post-35671207850138897562008-09-11T14:45:00.000+01:002008-09-11T14:45:00.000+01:00A school curriculum only has so many hours. So sti...A school curriculum only has so many hours. So stick to the key theories rather than indulging superstitious notions.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't mean you block the debate on the subject, let it rage in academia or blogopshere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com