Ben Stein shows he's no Michael Moore

[CharlestonChad]

Naw, it's just that the right, unlike the left, knows the difference between farce and reality.

Which explains the block-buster status of Michael Moore's and Gore's mockumentaries.

Unfortunately for you, you cannot claim to be the resident expert on science. I guess that means you probably shouldn't try to make up some story about being a scientist in your last job and how you were fired by some liberal cause you questioned evolution.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I half-way expect that you've already done this.

 

[frazzledgear]

The whackos are out in force.

Fraz - ID isn't science and that's a fact. Dance around and wave your Magic Maracas all you like, ID is theology, not science. And that is a fact.

ID as a refutation of the entire theory of evolution -which is EXACTLY the position creationists have taken -is not a science. When someone argues that ID should be taught as an opposing theory to evolution -that isn't science. It is simply renaming creationism "intelligent design" and was specifically done by creationists in the hope it would slide by unnoticed. I totally agree, in that situation, it is not science.

However, that isn't true when discussing the SPECIFIC work of a specific scientist who reached that conclusion based on their scientific work and has the work product to support that conclusion.

Don't confuse my insistence that the work of a scientist cannot be judged to be "real" science by anyone other than fellow scientists, that means I accept their conclusions as "truth". I am talking about who is qualified to determine the scientific validity of another scientist's work. That isn't determined by popular opinion -we've been there, done that and nothing good comes of it.

Some people intentionally or not, mix the actions of creationists who re-named their own creationist beliefs in order to take the NAME of the theory for themselves -with the very specific work of a specific scientist and pretend they are one and the same. But the SPECIFIC work done by scientists where that theory was offered, applies ONLY to a highly specific question and was never intended or offered as a refutation of evolution -by ANY scientist. Most scientists who have offered that theory for a specific question AGREE with at least part of the theory of evolution -and for some, a lot of that theory.

So you can't argue that scientists who offered that theory don't believe in evolution. Most of them believe at least some of that theory is correct, and some believe much of it to be correct. Creationists who believe NO part of evolution is correct and glommed onto the NAME of this theory and re-named their creationist beliefs with it -have nothing to do with any specific scientific work.

If, internationally known astrophysicist and cosmologist, Michal Heller produces reams of nothing BUT scientific work involving extensive physics, math, cosmology etc. and says based on that work alone, he concluded "X,Y and Z" -then that is a conclusion that came from the SCIENCE of his work, that he claims the SCIENCE supports. Another scientist in the same field is qualified to try and reproduce his work and qualified to determine whether those conclusions are supported by that work. His scientific work either has validity to it or not -but that cannot be determined by merely claiming you don't like his conclusions that came from that science.

The notion that because some creationist personally liked those conclusions for that one specific question and pretends it was intended to applied for ANY other area but that specific one -in no way discredits the work of a specific scientist. Religious people didn't like the IMPLICATIONS of Darwin's work when it was presented -and on that basis alone declared it be not "real" science too.

But opinion, based on nothing but the fact you just don't like the IMPLICATIONS that come from a scientist's work, cannot in any way determine the validity of the work. It couldn't when it was Darwin's ox getting gored, and it still can't just because secularists believe it is their ox getting gored by some scientist's work. They just don't like the IMPLICATIONS of it. Tough -that isn't how the validity of a scientist's work is determined.

 

[Ravi]

Fraz, what is this guy's evidence that supports id?

 

[manifold]

Fraz, what is this guy's evidence that supports id?

A pile of scrap metal has never randomly organized into an intricate time-piece. Shit, I'm convinced!

 

[frazzledgear]

well, I gave your rant about 2/3 of a chance before I decided to say fuckit and tell you where you are wrong. Specifically,



So are there ANY questions in science that cannot be answered while approaching it JUST from a materialism paradigm? Is it possible that another perspective has ANY truth to it or that another perspective can add to the expanse of knowledge? To insist a question can ONLY be answered by a materialism paradigm and no other, or that no other perspective can possibly contribute any further knowledge over that gained with a materialism paradigm is patently false.

​

to answer your question, NO. Not in regards to SCIENCE. This is why I keep telling you to refer to Bacon. Your "materialism paradigm" is a euphemism for PHYSICAL. Which, sadly that I must point out, is a prerequisite for PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

Now, I understand the core of your arguement; that we limit our scope of potential answers by automatically disregarding a school of thought. Ok, fair enough. But, this is why I ask for evidence beyond a "devil made me do it" explanation. Im sure we both agree that roman and greek religious explanations for physical occurrences are not only ridiculous but comical, yes? Their FAITH didn't make it true that a chariot pulled the sun across the sky, yes? Would you entertain the idea that zeus caused the bing bang, or is the whatever of Hellers math? Would you expect an Athena worshiper to bring a little more to the table than historic writings?

Regardless, anonymous internet person, I hope you are having a great start of your weekend.

Having a terrific weekend, thank you -hope yours is going well.

You exposed the weakness in your own argument. Every generation operated by a paradigm -and each were utterly convinced there was no other legitimate way to approach scientific questions. This generation is no different in that regard. The insistence that it is flat-out impossible for any other perspective to add anything legitimate or expand our knowledge is the identical flaw every generation of scientists has made.

So you are actually trying to get around that by limiting what is even considered to be "science". It is like saying biology is science -but math isn't, therefore math cannot possibly help with the unanswered questions we have. But it can and it has. And so can approaching different scientific questions from a variety of perspectives. To insist otherwise is no different than saying there is just one valid perspective to witnessing a crime -and no other. One person may see the crime -someone shot. But not see the shooter. Someone else may have seen the shooter, but not the person who was shot. Together, they make a larger, more complete picture.

We operate under a materialism paradigm or perspective. It is a perspective that says everything that exists, in ANY form it exists, is causally the result of physical processes and can be reduced to nothing but physical processes. But is that what is actually being sought in EVERY possible question of science? To say it is, is limiting what is even considered to be science. We not only want to learn how the world and universe work, but how we function within it, how other forces influence it and in what way -and ultimately, what it all means. You are saying that is true up until the "what it all means" part -but that is your limitation you are putting on it. Are you saying science can't answer that part, so why bother? We don't know until we try but must also consider the likelihood that it could possibly be answered by the joint efforts of multiple perspectives.

Science is a very, very broad field that ranges from physical processes to sociology to the metaphysical. Is a scientist attempting to research the paranormal or metaphysical a whacko or a scientist? Because there are scientists in several fields trying to do that. Only his ACTUAL WORK can tell us if he is a nutcase or providing legitimate work.

In addition, it is possible for a scientist to provide legitimate scientific work -but end up with a conclusion that is contradicted by his own scientific work. It is possible -and has happened -that a scientist's conclusion was correct. But the work he relied on to get it was all wrong. He came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. And it was only by changing perspective the true basis for that sound conclusion was found -but it didn't come from the work the original scientist provided. Only other scientists can determine if that work is valid, first of all -and then determine whether his conclusions really are SCIENTIFICALLY supported by that work.

Clearly a materialism paradigm is the proper approach for MANY questions in science -but the ONLY one capable of giving valid information for all possible questions - and EVERY other possible perspective is automatically invalid? Nah. That will never be true and has never been true - because we already know there is no one perspective that can possibly tell us EVERYTHING about everything.

 

[Ravi]

A pile of scrap metal has never randomly organized into an intricate time-piece. Shit, I'm convinced!

ah...damning, for sure.

 

[manifold]

ah...damning, for sure.

The sarcastic spin was all me, but that's essentially the standard example used to defend ID. And people buy it.

 

[mattskramer]

A pile of scrap metal has never randomly organized into an intricate time-piece. Shit, I'm convinced!

How do you know? Have you visited all of the planets in all of the systems in the entire universe? Have you mapped every inch of all that exists?

 

[Diuretic]

How do you know? Have you visited all of the planets in all of the systems in the entire universe? Have you mapped every inch of all that exists?

Since no human has I think your question is pointless because all it can do is lead to fantastic speculation that comes to nothing in the context of the current discussions.

 

[José]

Originally posted by frazzledgear
You exposed the weakness in your own argument. Every generation operated by a paradigm -and each were utterly convinced there was no other legitimate way to approach scientific questions. This generation is no different in that regard. The insistence that it is flat-out impossible for any other perspective to add anything legitimate or expand our knowledge is the identical flaw every generation of scientists has made.

So you are actually trying to get around that by limiting what is even considered to be "science". It is like saying biology is science -but math isn't, therefore math cannot possibly help with the unanswered questions we have. But it can and it has. And so can approaching different scientific questions from a variety of perspectives. To insist otherwise is no different than saying there is just one valid perspective to witnessing a crime -and no other. One person may see the crime -someone shot. But not see the shooter. Someone else may have seen the shooter, but not the person who was shot. Together, they make a larger, more complete picture.

We operate under a materialism paradigm or perspective. It is a perspective that says everything that exists, in ANY form it exists, is causally the result of physical processes and can be reduced to nothing but physical processes. But is that what is actually being sought in EVERY possible question of science? To say it is, is limiting what is even considered to be science. We not only want to learn how the world and universe work, but how we function within it, how other forces influence it and in what way -and ultimately, what it all means. You are saying that is true up until the "what it all means" part -but that is your limitation you are putting on it. Are you saying science can't answer that part, so why bother? We don't know until we try but must also consider the likelihood that it could possibly be answered by the joint efforts of multiple perspectives.

Science is a very, very broad field that ranges from physical processes to sociology to the metaphysical. Is a scientist attempting to research the paranormal or metaphysical a whacko or a scientist? Because there are scientists in several fields trying to do that. Only his ACTUAL WORK can tell us if he is a nutcase or providing legitimate work.

In addition, it is possible for a scientist to provide legitimate scientific work -but end up with a conclusion that is contradicted by his own scientific work. It is possible -and has happened -that a scientist's conclusion was correct. But the work he relied on to get it was all wrong. He came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. And it was only by changing perspective the true basis for that sound conclusion was found -but it didn't come from the work the original scientist provided. Only other scientists can determine if that work is valid, first of all -and then determine whether his conclusions really are SCIENTIFICALLY supported by that work.

Clearly a materialism paradigm is the proper approach for MANY questions in science -but the ONLY one capable of giving valid information for all possible questions - and EVERY other possible perspective is automatically invalid? Nah. That will never be true and has never been true - because we already know there is no one perspective that can possibly tell us EVERYTHING about everything.

Holy shit!!

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Where's onedomino when you need him?

 

[José]

Heller writes scientific papers on cosmology and popular books supporting theism.

The latter is rightly considered by his peer community as philosophical speculation.

Dawkins writes scientific papers on evolutionary biology and popular books supporting atheism/materialism.

The latter is rightly considered by his peer community as philosophical speculation.

Their philosophical works are equally disregarded by the scientific community not because “they don’t like their conclusions” but because issues such as the ultimate meaning and purpose of the Universe belong to the realm of philosophy/theology.

These authors have failed to distinguish between scientific and philosophical questions. Scientists, like Heller and Dawkins, in their popular writings tend to invoke the authority of science for ideas that are not part of science itself. Articles in journals of phisics, chemistry and biology do not discuss materialism, theism or other world views that provide philosophical interpretations of science. These are alternative philosophical belief systems, each claiming to encompass all reality.

Science’s “materialistic paradigm/assumption” is not a philosophical/ontological statement.

It’s just a working assumption that guides scientific research.

 

[José]

Frazz is totally unable to recognise the frontier that separates science from philosophical and theological speculation.

The fact that much of that philosophical speculation is made by scientists themselves further clouded his mind.

In fact, the problem goes a lot deeper than this.

He doesn’t believe there should be any separation between those three disciplines.

Ravir is absolutely right. This debate is a waste of time and for that reason this will be my last contribution to this thread.

 

[Ravi]

Since no human has I think your question is pointless because all it can do is lead to fantastic speculation that comes to nothing in the context of the current discussions.

I thought he was being sarcastic. At least I hope he was. That's pretty much the response a fundie would give.

 

[Diuretic]

I thought he was being sarcastic. At least I hope he was. That's pretty much the response a fundie would give.

Oops, my mistake, heck I'm dense at times.

 

[AllieBaba]

The anger that is evinced by people in response to steadfast belief in God always surprises me. I don't get angry at people when they don't believe in God, but it's obvious those who don't believe in God are angered by the belief of others.

Which actually strengthens my faith, since it's all in the Bible.

 

[manifold]

The anger that is evinced by people in response to steadfast belief in God always surprises me. I don't get angry at people when they don't believe in God, but it's obvious those who don't believe in God are angered by the belief of others.

Which actually strengthens my faith, since it's all in the Bible.

Since I believe in God, I can't speak for atheists. However, I don't think it's the belief part that angers non-believers as you assert. I think it is when said belief is brandished recklessly to undermine scientific achievment and infiltrate politics and public policy that people get angered. It sure does annoy the shit out of me and I'm a believer.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't undermine anything.

 

[manifold]

I don't undermine anything.

I agree with you 100% in that regard.

But you sure do try.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, I don't. Your bias attributes motives to me that I don't have myself.

I'm not interested in undermining science. But I don't recognize it as the end-all, I don't see it as infallible, and I don't believe I need to tailor my faith to fit around it. I see God as infallible and the end-all, and I know that science will eventually bear that out.

But men make mistakes.

Sorry if that offends you, but it's your problem and not mine.

 

[manifold]

No, I don't. Your bias attributes motives to me that I don't have myself.

I'm not interested in undermining science. But I don't recognize it as the end-all, I don't see it as infallible, and I don't believe I need to tailor my faith to fit around it. I see God as infallible and the end-all, and I know that science will eventually bear that out.

But men make mistakes.

Sorry if that offends you, but it's your problem and not mine.

Okie dokie.