Evolution is Fact

[REASON]

Originally Posted by goku

is it the right answer? so many answers would work.

Yes, many would, all of which could be proven. But many wouldn't work (such as 182251 x 4 = 911255) because you couldn't prove it. That's the point.

Originally Posted by goku

scientists have great imaginations, but their's is no greater than yours.

The way I see it the more knowledge and information you have, the greater the potential of your imagination. I would suggest that the imagination of a two day old newborn is incredibly limited.

Originally Posted by goku

when you believe them you give them power, power to control you.

Belief is not really about giving power, it's about taking responsibility.

Originally Posted by goku

because of so called global warming, they will control what light bulbs you can buy, and they brain washed you into thinking that you are helping yourself by taking their light bulb.

Is this what you're really concerned about? Light bulbs? Do you really care whether or not light bulbs become more efficient?

I'm not buying your concern about giving up power anyway. You have obviously given yours to religious ideology and don't seem to have a problem with that, other than the fact that you keep coming here for information. I hope you continue to come here.

Originally Posted by goku

i don't know if that came out right, sometimes it's hard for me to put into words the thoughts in my head, even worse with a key board

Well, that's a common problem for people. No worries. If you feel you're not being understood, just see if you can restate whatever it is you're trying to get across.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by goku

hmm, how could it be a scientific fact today and scientifically proven wrong tomorrow?

What? I'm not sure what the "it" is you're referring to.

Science is not product, it's a process.

[goku]

Originally Posted by REASON

What? I'm not sure what the "it" is you're referring to.

the it is nothing specific

[goku]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

evolution is fact.

a scientific fact?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by goku

a scientific fact?

Are there any other kind?

[InfiniteNow]

Goku,

I'd like for you to first tell me how you define "scientific." Once you do, I will address your question.


If you seriously believe that evolution is false, then I'm afraid no information, no data, no evidence will ever be good enough to convince you otherwise, as evolution is truly the most robust and well supported scientific theory ever put forth in the history of human kind. You also should recall that a scientific theory is quite different than how the word "theory" is used in common parlance. The following page does a fair job of covering this pertinent distinction:

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Again, once you tell me how you are definining "scientific" when you use it as a descriptor of the word "fact," I will gladly address your question.

Thanks for your participation.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by goku

hmm, how could it be a scientific fact today and scientifically proven wrong tomorrow?

I think that post would make a nice illustration for the Wiki article on Straw Man. Any Wiki editors around?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by goku

hmm, how could it be a scientific fact today and scientifically proven wrong tomorrow?

Originally Posted by C1ay

I think that post would make a nice illustration for the Wiki article on Straw Man. Any Wiki editors around?

I don’t think this goku’s post is a good example of a straw man fallacy, because the position it exaggerates is so far from what most people understand a scientific position to be that it’s not recognizable. The caricature of science it suggests, while recognizable to some communities, such as anti-technological conspiracy theorists and some kinds of religious fundamentalists, is obscure to most readers of hypography and wikipedia.

Instead, I think it reveals a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. It’s reasoning appears to be something like this:

• “Scientific facts” are absolute certainties;
• However, science frequently rejects previous “scientific facts”;
• Therefore, science is contradictory and absurd.

The flaw in this argument is, I’m confident most hypography readers recognize, that “scientific facts” are not absolute certainties. Rather, they are statements that can be supported by some well-defined and widely accepted standard of evaluation. Such standards change, so what is a “scientific fact” at one time may not be at an early or later time. Even on the same day, what is a fact in one scientific context may not be in another – for example, conservation of mass, momentum, and energy are “facts” in systems well described by simple Newtonian mechanics, such as bridges and construction cranes, but not in systems not well described by them, such as particle accelerators and radioactive substances.

As I’ve stated a few times around these forums, I don’t personally see a distinct division between ancient religious dogma and modern scientific theories. At some time, based on some well-defined and widely accepted standard of evaluation, ideas such as the many creation stories (Genesis etc.) of the many religions were, I think, effectively credible scientific theories, based on the then best available understanding of reality. However, as our understanding of reality improved, these accounts were rejected. For many religious people, they were redefined as not literally true, but as useful moral allegory. Others explained the literal failure of the old stories as due to the limited understanding of the original story tellers, and sought to reword them in scientifically correct terms. Still others rejected the new understanding, in many cases, explaining that the new understanding was due to corrupting deception by a god-like enemy, ie: “Satan the devil”. A fourth line of religious thought – commonly termed ‘orthodoxy” – hold that the literal truth or moral utility of the story is secondary to its ability to unite a religion, society, or nation – that religion is primarily a political tool.

One sees these and other basic modes of reluctances to acquire and apply new and different scientific understandings across generations and disciplines of scientists, and even as internal struggles within communities of and individual scientists.

I think the greatest distinction between a scientific and a religious mindset has to do the absolute acceptance of authority. In general and with some exceptions, scientific mindsets lack it, while religious ones have it.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I don’t think this goku’s post is a good example of a straw man fallacy, because the position it exaggerates is so far from what most people understand a scientific position to be that it’s not recognizable.

I would agree with that. It is kind of like a straw man on steroids....

[Pyrotex]

Someone famous once said that superstition is so damned pernicious because, to the superstitious, superstition isn't superstition, it's just what's so.

Likewise with "strawman arguments". Most folks not steeped in the scientific tradition, and especially if they have been exposed to anti-science suspicion, consider their strawman arguments simply to be a true and valid expression of what they THINK science says.

"Doesn't science say that yadda yadda yadda?"
"Isn't a theory just a yadda yadda yadda?"
"Doesn't the law of thermodynamics prove that yadda yadda yadda?"

And we, who ARE steeped in scientific thinking and rigorous analysis, can't say YES or NO. The questions are flawed. The questions are based on multiple layers of false assumptions, misrepresentations, word-twisting, misunderstanding and confusion.

Science ain't for sissies.