Dynamical Systems and Intelligent Design

[confutatis]

Originally posted by Zero
Why would anyone "accept" the existence of something with no logical or evidential support for it?

Because you can be skeptical of some things but not of everything. Ultimately everything can be doubted, including logic and evidence, but that doesn't mean everything must be doubted. So how do we pick what to doubt and what to accept without questioning? Or, specifically, why should we accept "logic" and "evidential support" when there's no logic or evidential support that those things exist or are true?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by confutatis
Because you can be skeptical of some things but not of everything. Ultimately everything can be doubted, including logic and evidence, but that doesn't mean everything must be doubted. So how do we pick what to doubt and what to accept without questioning? Or, specifically, why should we accept "logic" and "evidential support" when there's no logic or evidential support that those things exist or are true?

Because if we ignore those two things, then there is no way to make any coherent statement about anything at all. If literally anything can be true, then there is no basis for claiming that anything can be true.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by confutatis
...but that doesn't mean everything must be doubted. So how do we pick what to doubt and what to accept without questioning?

How (or who?) do we decide what can and can't be accepted/questioned? Seems to me to be a very arbitrary way to pursue knowledge, leading to no logically consistent answers.

 

[Zero]

And, whether you like it or not, this thread goes to show that scientific-style evidence and logic is more respected than the "anything goes" philosophy of the woowoo crowd. After all, just look at the creationists struggling to find any link to science to legitimize their position.

 

[confutatis]

Originally posted by Zero
And, whether you like it or not, this thread goes to show that scientific-style evidence and logic is more respected than the "anything goes" philosophy of the woowoo crowd.

I always find it strange when people talk about science in a passionate tone. Isn't that anti-scientific?

After all, just look at the creationists struggling to find any link to science to legitimize their position.

I tend to notice something far more interesting: only scientists and their enthusiasts worry about that. To the rest of us, it sounds like a silly debate between a PhD and a three year-old child. That scientists get the better of it shouldn't surprise anyone. That they actually bother is really hard to believe.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Why do scientists worry about creationists? Years ago I had lunch with my coworkers. This was in the midwest US and there were two software people and an engineer besides me. The talk got around to evolution and I was the only one at the table who believed in it. These were all college graduates!

Scientists worry about creationists because the US population is gradually sliding into superstition, and the creationists are supplying the grease.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by confutatis
I always find it strange when people talk about science in a passionate tone. Isn't that anti-scientific?



I tend to notice something far more interesting: only scientists and their enthusiasts worry about that. To the rest of us, it sounds like a silly debate between a PhD and a three year-old child. That scientists get the better of it shouldn't surprise anyone. That they actually bother is really hard to believe.

Do you realize that the creationists are coming close to forcing their views to be taught in classrooms? THAT'S why we worry about their idiocy, because they insist on spreading it to children.

 

[confutatis]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Why do scientists worry about creationists? Years ago I had lunch with my coworkers. This was in the midwest US and there were two software people and an engineer besides me. The talk got around to evolution and I was the only one at the table who believed in it. These were all college graduates!

I'm not sure why disbelieving evolution is a problem. Our species has survived millions of years believing in gods and spirits; it could well be argued that belief in the supernatural is an evolutionary advantage. Why change it and risk our future?

Scientists worry about creationists because the US population is gradually sliding into superstition, and the creationists are supplying the grease.

Superstition may be like sexual desire: even though some minority strongly disapproves of it, it has been hardwired in people's genes by millions of years of evolution and, other than short periods of strong repression, there's not much that can be done about it. Which is a good thing, at least in the case of sex.

Creationists, without realizing it, are just carrying out what their genes programmed them to do.

Originally posted by Zero
Do you realize that the creationists are coming close to forcing their views to be taught in classrooms? THAT'S why we worry about their idiocy, because they insist on spreading it to children.

If you think creationism is the worst idiocy children can be exposed to, you haven't watched TV in a long time. I don't see a lot of scientists complaining of dumb TV programming.

 

[Fliption]

Confutatis, I have to say thanks for the fresh perspective. I think you are right. I think what you're seeing is just individual people getting fired up over issues that they have a strong opinion about for whatever reason. These "specialists" get lost in the trees and always think their issue is the most important.

Of course, I think that a proper education in science is extremely important. But I'm not sure how you reconcile science that contradicts religious beliefs, in a free society. It's an unfortunate battle because the evidence is clear(in these forums at least) that those that get involved in this matter can't help but invest personally in it and therefore become close-minded to some extent. It's just human nature.

I'm having to be careful myself about getting too uptight about it which is why I like this perspective from Confutatis. The other day a female acquaintance asked me if I believed in god. When I didn't answer the way she wanted she got a frown on her face and said sarcastically "oh and I bet you believe in evolution too don't you?" After I said "yes", she preached to me about Jesus for a while. The whole time I'm fearfully thinking to myself "This women can vote!"

Even though I'm not militant about this topic, thanks again for the perspective. Some people need it more than I

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by confutatis



If you think creationism is the worst idiocy children can be exposed to, you haven't watched TV in a long time. I don't see a lot of scientists complaining of dumb TV programming.

You've got me there...besides 1-2 shows, I haven't watched TV on a regular basis since 1997.