OT: What the heck do they teach in college??

Page 3 of 7  

ID is not a theory, it's a belief. A theory explains, predicts, and is subject to disproof. ID fits none of these criteria.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Precisely what are you saying?
There must be a God or a Force that was so intelligent s/he did x, y, z yada?
Why couldn't something beyond our understanding, at the moment, ultimately explain our existence?
Centuries ago much less could be explained than it can be today. Suppose centuries ago people just stopped asking questions, and said it's all due to a God. Where would we be today?
Your way, when cast as "science," is stereotyped as stupid because it rejects deductive reasoning and shuts off further investigation and discovery.
When cast as "faith," your way is perfectly acceptable and even deductive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

driving so many other posts. My argument has *nothing* to do with religion, or faith, or any putative god. I do not say anything specific or knowable is the source of design (or in my philosophy, constant creation). My personal hunch - and it is only a hunch - is that the nature of the source of creation is beyond our knowledge. That is also the hardest conjecture to prove, but not impossible. All we can say with any certainty is that evolution has not brought us here, with the capacity for this very discussion. I am still waiting for a rebuttal on that point. Creationist theory leaves the field wide open to investigation - unlike the evolutionist view, which insists the case is closed.
My religion - my faith - has *absolutely* nothing to do with the question of "how we got here" - not a bit more than my choice of pajamas has anything to do with it. It is all about the science. You can toss all my philosophy into the street, and the argument against evolution of Man holds. After all, science was my philosophy and my religion when I developed the argument.
BTW - deductive reasoning won't get you far, especially in things like this. Inductive reasoning is the preferred approach, because it is more powerful and flexible.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You leave open the possibility of a god, so I'd say it has a heckuva lot to do with religion and faith.

This last sentence is when you start operating on simply faith and not science.
You assert it might be proven someday, but you don't know it can be proven.

You can say this, but you can't prove it.
I and many others can't say this with certainty.

That depends on the particular Creationist viewpoint.
ISTM some want to give all the credit to God and stop trying to elaborate on the present theory on the origins of life.

I don't think evolution says that all.
It's a fact that we still simply do not understand fully the origins of life.
All we have are guesses.

Then you're defining "religious beliefs" differently than most people.

You can say this all you want. Doesn't mean people will agree with you (that science is your religion yada).

We couldn't even have a rational conversation without both of us relying heavily on deductive reasoning.

lol lol LOL
I resign.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

called The Divine Temple of the Mystical Monkey decided Planet of the Apes was a documentary and adopted evolutionism as a central tenet, that does not make evolution a religious theory. The very same applies to creation theory. No god need exist, but it allows for the existence of one... exactly as evolution theory does.

Welcome to the world of science! Mathematics and philosophy are riddled with such teasers, with the search for some famous mathematical proofs dating back many centuries.

I am asking you and all the others to refute my thesis: that there is no known or hypothesized mechanism in evolutionary theory to explain the sudden development of advanced abstract thought over a span of fewer than 10,000 generations. If you can prove that, I'll stop saying it.

No, it doesn't. We are talking about creation theory, not about specific sects. Creationism allows for any intelligent design (including my own Solipsist philosophy) while evolutionism allows no variation.

How many options can you offer under evolution theory?

Exactly so.

It is a mistake to speak for others, and I hope you don't think I represent anybody else in my beliefs or arguments. Buddhists, for example, take great excepton to the assertion that their religion spells out origin beliefs.

Very true. I don't expect anybody to agree with me. But my challenge to evolution as the origin of you and me is 100% secular, and I am waiting for anybody to address it.

working field. Theories are not allowed under the rules of deduction, because the results have to be known before the question can be expressed... theories are inductive tools.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

Somebody who's put so much thought into this shouldn't have ignored the possibility a creator intelligently designing only the basics of the the universe and then letting evolution runs its course.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

of the appearance of abstract thought. If it had emerged over 30 million years rather than 30 thousand, I would definitely think your explanation was the more likely.
My arguments don't address a source of the universe - that really is a different matter entirely - but address how mankind came to be what it is: a new dimension of intelligence.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in 30k. Perhaps we just don't know about the evidence, or perhaps it really happened that fast. Evolutionary "leaps" happen.

humanity. But it seems to be a logical extension. By the way, Darwin had a theory; ID/Creationism are at best hypotheses.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

we've found, cave paintings in France. Given that we may not have found the earliest ones done yet - and that the very earliest may well have been done with charcoal or animal blood and have vanished over time - the actual beginning may have been as much as 100K years ago. Maybe the caves with the earliest painitngs are full of Iraqi WMDs ;-)
A bigger objection is the absence of any clear mechanism for the development of abstract thought, particularly to the extent we are capable of it. Natural selection works on the basis of greater adaptability based on inheritable characteristics, and nothing associated with abstract thought appears to have a significant inheritable component. Certainly the effect is not so pronounced that abstract thinkers would have entirely supplanted the non-thinkers in 3000 generations, or in 10,000. (Insert your own wry comment about whether non-thinkers are gone.)
There are two central questions: (1) did something happen in the last 100K years or less that fed the rise of abstract thought, and with it agrarian societies, writing and art? If the answer is "no" you are excused from the second question. (2) If so, what could have been the nature of that change; the form of the change rather than the putative source of the change?

as controversial as the extrapolations that followed. Really, the problems with the extrapolations didn't/don't stem from the theories but from the unwarranted enthusiasm for the farthest extensions. I don't even have a problem with the theory that hominids were the evolutionary result of a spark of life (my guess: one surviving spark) eons ago, or even that the original spark(s) was/were the result of natural albeit rare chemical processes - even though those too are hypotheses, as you describe. My big problem is the jump from evolved hominids to mankind.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

OK, to side with our fearless warrior Mike, you have to admit that he stands his ground in a very respectable, even though obviously not popular, way.
People "believe in" either Creationism or Evolutionism and that's just that, a belief, and unfounded except for personal conviction. You believe in something you can't prove. In this case , you can't prove one or the other.
(full disclosure - I'm far away from being a religious nut, actually, not religious at all, and the whole Creationism debate seems far-fetched - but that doesn't imply that the "other" theory is true).
As long as these things are not proven but remain theories, there's no point in beating each other up about them. The idea is to remain critical and only accept as fact (or theory, in this case) what jives with your own point of view, and remain open to the possibility of "the other side" (or a third!) being right.
Another good discussion topic (not that I want to hijack a Honda or consumer newsgroup!) is the whole "Big Bang" theory. Here's a writeup by a well-known and respected scientist (PhD in chemistry and critical thinker), Alexander Shulgin, on the "Theory of the Big Bang": http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/bigbang.html
At one point it was well respected "scientific fact" that the earth is flat.
We learn something new every day...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tomb wrote:

No, he doesn't. He mixes religion with science but tries to seem scientific about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"how we got here" and in fact is not related to anything beyond the strictly spiritual. It is a fallacy that I have persistently tried to dispel that intelligent design and creation theories are necessarily religious. As I have stated many times here, the source of the sudden capacity for abstract thought is not known and possibly can not be known.
The erroneous presumption that creation = fundamental Chritianity is one that causes a great deal of trouble.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am fascinated that a century ago we could sum up the mechanics of the universe in a (large) handful of Newtonian formulas and equations. With the advent of relativistic mechanics and their spectacular success in predicting anomalies in celestial behavior there was some head scratching. Quantum mechanics really made a mess of things, so we need Superstring Theory (which in turn uses Grassman number systems; systems that are merely consistent without being applicable to reality) just to make our 4 dimensional universe fit into 10-dimensional model. The simplest explanation at this point is that the universe itself is impossible. But that isn't an attractive option.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

Well, that's part of the fun in it, isn't it?

Ever seen the movie "Waking Life"? Might appeal to you...

You're loosing me on the details here. Always sort of sucked in physics...

Well, personally, I'm quite happy living in an impossible place. Doesn't bother me at all ;)
TomB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

Sure Mike's theory leaves open the possibility of a god. It also leaves open the possibility of multiple gods, or aliens, or even... mice. That no more makes it a "religeous" theory than it does an X-Files theory.
--
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0539-1, 09/27/2005
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1. If Mike's "theory" is that which ID puts forth, then it has to be an "intelligent" entity that originated (x, y, z) on earth etc.
2. If what Mike says proposes no particular cause behind a certain phenomenon, then it's not a "theory" in the scientifc sense.
3. If one possibility left open for explaing life's origins is "gods" then of course this is religion about which we're talking.
The language is important. So are strong deductive reasoning skills; we couldn't be having a rational conversation without them.
The trick sometimes is identifying those that do not have strong deductive reasoning skills. Until one does, one will waste a lot of time talking nonsense. Plus, of course the person lacking deductive reasoning skill can't really follow proofs. S/he'll seize on some part of an argument and not look at the entire argument. A part of an argument is not thee full argument yada.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

scientific response, "we don't know."

possibility of "gods" as does almost any theory. They also leave open the possibility of the "Chariot of the Gods" theory (hey - that one does qualify as a theory). Religion is here only if you insist on bringing it in.

not a theory. You are right that it requires deduction to arrive at a proof, but under the rules of deduction the theorem is the result of the proof - theories are not allowed. Theorems are invariably as dull as rice cakes.
Induction is used for virtually everything in the real world - court battles, accident and incident investigations, even safety analyses. Every analysis I have ever seen or done relies on probabilities: what is the way to bet? The one my manager most appreciated was one of the loosest; measuring system availability after one of our biggest facilities lost all power (don't ask!). One dimension had the impact of traffic on our system bracketed between 30% and 50%, but the precisions of the time dimension coupled with the marginal nature of the outage we were measuring kept the uncertainty of our system availability to within a few tenths of a point. My estimate was the only one any of us could come up with - everybody else was trying to count trees rather than measure the forest. Loose as it was, that report has become a model for our current availability reporting.
The world also has fewer certainties than it did even a half century ago, as a result of probability theory extended from quantum theory. There is even a piece of equipment in production that uses "impossible" (now only "ridiculously improbable") action: the Tunneling Electron Microscope. There is also serious research into faster-than-light communications based on quantum tunneling - only microwaves that can penetrate a thick metal block are used!
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is a miscommunication here.
Intelligent Design theory claims an "intelligent" entity originated (x, y, z) on earth. If you support ID theory, then you are making the same claim.

The theory of evolution contains itself to an explanation of the scientific evidence before it. It of course is silent on the topic of gods.
No scientific theory will purport to explain a lack of evidence. This lack of evidence is what we have in the case of god.

Michael, if you want to claim there is no "intelligent designer" in the concepts of "Intelligent Design," then it's your right to be nonsensical. But if you insist on being nonsensical, then we cannot have a rational discussion.
I will repeat that, if you have faith there may be a god, then I certainly can't disprove it. But since you also have no scientific evidence to prove it, it denotes a religious position, not a scientific one.
We can quibble about the meaning of "scientific evidence," but then you're arguing that the same quibbling be done in science classes. Don't kids have enough to learn in science classes already?
Leave these subjects to social studies/philosopy/theology classes.
(I do not suppose, though, that one position is superior to the other. Religion has value to many people. So does science.)

What you are struggling to say is that a scientific theory is not a mathematical theorem.
But in fact science (including scientific theories) and rational discourse could not proceed without deductive reasoning (among other things).
Likewise an inductive argument could not proceed without the tools of deductive reasoning. (An inductive argument's main structure is different from a deductive argument, but it uses the tools of deductive reasoning in part to formulate it.)

Deductive reasoning is ubiquitous. Science could absolutely not proceed without it. A rational discussion could not proceed without it.
Science also cannot proceed without inductive reasoning.

I am confident that you have seen and done many, many analyses that rely on deductive reasoning.
The courts, accident or whatever investigations, use deductive reasoning often.
Supreme Court opinions by and large are an overdose of deductive reasoning.
Probabilistic predictions of course also rely heavily on deductive reasoning.
Here's an easy example of how people use deductive reasoning: All babies that have testicles are said to be boys. This baby has testicles. This baby is said to be a boy.
Here's an easy example of how we use deductive reasoning at alt.autos.honda:
Early 1990s Hondas that fail to start only under x, y, z, conditions most likely have a, b, c wrong with them. Ten of the posts to alt.autos.honda this summer concerned early 1990s Hondas failing to start under x, y, z conditions. Most had a, b, or c wrong with them.
Or, if you prefer, the main relay problem is nearly as ubiquitous as deductive reasoning. ;-)
So of course deductive arguments can and do use probabilities often.

Given the low standards for education in this country, I suppose I should not be surprised that you do not see how much deductive reasoning is used in the above example. (There is some inductive reasoning, too, but the argument above could not succeed without also using principles of deduction.)

That argument itself is deductive. <shrug>
snip, because Usenet banter about "quantum theory" occurs as often as examples of Godwin's law. Trite. Nothing new. Waxing philosophical about quantum theory on Usenet is an exercise in self-indulgence and does not involve discovery.
You want profundities? Go read most anything but Usenet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

are right.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.autos.honda Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:39 PM Subject: Re: OT: What the heck do they teach in college??

only requires an intelligence, the nature of which may not be knowable.

that religion is not implied by ID.

humans capable of deep abstract thought. There is no theoretical mechanism for it, and the idea that such a radical and inexplicable change would occur worldwide over the course of a few thousand generations as a result of natural selection is more nonsensical than believing we are transplanted from... wherever it was Daniken said we came from. My position does not involve a god, but the likelihood of an undetermined intelligent influence based on preliminary indications. I don't know what religion you want to call that. However, religions that exclude the possibility of gods are defined as atheist. You are welcome to your religious beliefs, even though you insist the question of "how we got here" fit that religion by excluding the possibility of a god.

evidence, but rather that the source of our mental abilities is still a mystery. It is merely hard to avoid the conclusion it is from a greater intelligence, in keeping with a principle recognized by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) devotees: No intelligence can create a greater intelligence.

I don't think you are talking about deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can only fill in within the perimeter of our knowledge and can never expand it. It is only a way of rearranging what we already accept as fact; it is logical algebra.

formal proofs, because deduction requires predetermined certainty. Virtually all of what is called deduction (especially by Sherlock Holmes) is induction.

the Supreme Court for deduction. I believe the usual goal is "interpretation."

speed and time, the present location can be deduced, with an error budget. It follows the deductive models, in that the inputs are "given," but it is hardly logic.

been from the exception group. Changing it to "Most _probably_ had a, b, or c wrong with them" fixes it.
An easy way to categorize deduction and induction is that if a computer can work out the logic, it is deductive. It takes some pretty sophisticated AI to break into the world of induction.

example illustrates that by the loss of the word "probably." Notice that the "probability" must entirely resolved in the conclusion, so that it is only another fact.

Deduction in professional reports is best left to the reader unless it is specifically required to support the next (inductive) argument. Including deductive conclusions except as a bridge makes the text tedious and insulting to the reader, much as the "boy definition" example above would. It's a matter of professional style and respect for the reader's intelligence. Induction is almost always needed to make sense of raw data - that's why it is called "analysis."
I notice you have still not given your qualifications. I am still an engineer. But I wonder why you deduced (and that part *is* structured as deduction) "the low standards for education in this country" mandate my incompetence to do the job I'm trained for and have practiced for 30 years. Are all engineers unqualified (as you seem to assert)? The conclusion does not seem to follow from the postulate, unless you have some specific knowledge of my qualifications that you left unstated. Is your education from outside "this country" or do you exhibit the same incompetence?

The conclusion is "the world has fewer certainties than it did even a half century ago," but it drew directly from what postulates (as deduction must)? That paragraph had virtually no logic in it; just free argument. But I'm glad you were able to identify my writing as inaccurate - I must have been using a foreign character set that caused me to miss a lot ;-). I await the release of the redacted (syn: edited) text.
Where did you get your training in logic, anyway? Your qualifications, please.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.