Theistic Evolution - Insight & Answers

[Moridin]

Ok so if you believe that there is nothing outside of the "best representation of objective reality", then that would be an ideology. Science alone is not the ideology, the belief that there isn't anything outside of that context would be an ideology. Everyone has an ideology. If you were to tell me that you do not have an ideology because you only accept what is scientifically evident then you would be fooling yourself. That is your ideology.

This is of course a straw man, since it is the case that our best representation of objective reality is incompatible with most forms of theism (apart from watered downed versions and deism). Rejecting these forms of theism would therefore not be an ideology but completely in line with the evidence.

 

[robertm]

Ok so if you believe that there is nothing outside of the "best representation of objective reality", then that would be an ideology. Science alone is not the ideology, the belief that there isn't anything outside of that context would be an ideology. Everyone has an ideology. If you were to tell me that you do not have an ideology because you only accept what is scientifically evident then you would be fooling yourself. That is your ideology.

If something is "outside the context of science" that simply means it has not been studied.

Science is the study of phenomenon, there are divisions of phenomenon but those are only superficial. If a phenomenon has no effect, then it does not exist, if it does have an effect, then it will be meticulously dissected and described and all attempts will be made to fully understand the implications of the phenomenon in the context of our wider understanding of the various other phenomenon. There is nothing "outside" of science by definition, you would only be fooling yourself to think otherwise.

I accept many things that are not properly verified by solid evidence, and so does everyone else, but that says nothing as to whether or not those things are 'in the realm of science.' Reality is the realm of science.

 

[madness]

Moridin, the reason humans are special is their ability to ask such philosophical questions, I have stated this several times.
It is of course possible that the same facts may lead to different conclusions if the people considering them are coming from different ideologies (science being one).
My post had no contadictions, and I too can simply repeat why you are mistaken: I am of the opinion that there are no facts outside of a belief system or ideology, and this fact holds within my own belief system or ideology, so there is no contradiction. What holds in one belief system might not hold in another, this is not a problem for a relativist.
Science is of course an ideology, it is the ideology that empirical data along with induction (which is a philosophical problem in science) and certain other assumptions about objectivism etc are the correct way to find "truth". It is easy to argue against many of these assumptions (eg induction, realism) but they are taken as axiomatic within the scientific ideology. As a mathematical physicist who has read some philosophy, it certainly would be news to me that science isn't a belief system/ideology.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, the reason humans are special is their ability to ask such philosophical questions, I have stated this several times.

Yes, but this is not what is mean by not being (biologically) special.

It is of course possible that the same facts may lead to different conclusions if the people considering them are coming from different ideologies (science being one).

I agree that people can think that the same facts can lead to different conclusions, but this is not an accurate representation of reality. An no, for the fifth time, science is not an ideology.

I am of the opinion that there are no facts outside of a belief system or ideology, and this fact holds within my own belief system or ideology, so there is no contradiction.

How is this not an obvious contradiction? You are basically saying that everything is relative, but at the same time saying that the position that everything is relative is not relative. It is the same basic contradiction all epistemological relativist stumble upon.

What holds in one belief system might not hold in another, this is not a problem for a relativist.

This is of course not an objective fact for a relativist either.

Science is of course an ideology, it is the ideology that empirical data along with induction (which is a philosophical problem in science) and certain other assumptions about objectivism etc are the correct way to find "truth".

Since science is based on evidence, and therefore not an ideology. Science uses deduction, not induction. Basic Popperian falsification.

As a mathematical physicist who has read some philosophy, it certainly would be news to me that science isn't a belief system/ideology.

You consider to inflate your credentials, but they do not correspond to the content of your arguments.

 

[drankin]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.

Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

 

[Condor77]

Greetings Madness!

First and foremost let me tell you that my post is not intended to discredit you in any way, shape or form. I am just curious about your so-called credentials; perhaps you can clarify the following for me:

In post number 53 you claim the following:

“Having nearly completed a masters degree in mathematical physics, I think I have a reasonable understanding of physics and I am currently taking a course in cosmology.”

Then in post number 56 you claim the following:

“You can doubt my credentials all you like, the fact is I am soon to be starting a masters degree in mathematical physics and have done very well so far.”

Finally in post number 63 you claim the following:

“As a mathematical physicist who has read some philosophy, it certainly would be news to me that science isn't a belief system/ideology.”

I am not entirely sure what to make out of the posts that I’ve quoted from you.

Regards,

 

[madness]

Condor, my degree is a 5 year undergraduate masters and I have finished the first 4, next year being the year involving the masters project. I am interested in philosophy and have read it in my spare time since before starting my degree in phyics. Hope that clears it up.

Moridin, I don't see why special should be taken to mean biologically special.
I'm not saying that the position that everything is relative is not relative, but that it holds in my own relative belief system. This is self consistent for a relativist, but not for an absolutist. This is why you think there is a contradiction.
In analogy to frames of reference in physics - we can't be sure that there is no absolute frame, but we have no way to pick one out as special and say "this is the absolute frame that all others are to be measured by", so we say (uniform) motion is relative. Similarly, since we can't prove certain things (like if the world exists independently of our senses, or whether God exists), I would say we have no reason to assume that any particular choice is the correct one. In science, the choices are that the world does exist independently etc. That is the "frame of reference".
Have you read any philosophy of science? It certainly does use induction. This is one of the central problems in the philosophy of science that many people work on. That's why it's called "the problem of induction" (worked on extensively by David Hume and Bertrand Russel among others). You mention Popperian falsifiability, this is an example of a belief system, to be contrasted with logical positivism.
In response to your final comment, I would have no need to "inflate my credentials" if I wasn't continually set upon for having "a profound misunderstanding of basic physics".

 

[Condor77]

Greetings Madness!

Thank you for your response, it is now clear to me.

By the way, the following book might be of some interest to you, as it pertains to the discussion that you and Moridin are having in this thread: Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism by Paul Boghossian.

Though, I feel that I must tell you that this book argues against some aspects of your position in this thread.

Regards,

 

[madness]

Thanks Condor, I'll be honest and say that I am not necessarily a relativist. As I stated in the analogy with reference frames in physics, there are certain things which cannot be proven, and I would say that whether there is an absolute truth is one of them. I cannot be sure that truth really is entirely relative, but I would have no reason to pick one set of rules over another. In order to make any valid deductions, we need a set of axioms (a framework or belief system). You could choose the minimal set (something like solipsism, although even "I think therefore I am" requires some assumptions), but then you are limited in the deductions you can make. Science seems to have chosen a certain set which has allowed us to make a lot of progress, and this may be an indication that it somehow represents "reality". I would like to point out that science is not merely based on observational evidence - there are certain steps taken between experiment and theory. Consider dropping many different masses and observing that they all fall at the same rate. In order to then say "all masses fall at the same rate in a gravitational field" we have to make a leap of faith. This is an example of scientific induction.

 

[ConradDJ]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.
Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

I would say instead:

1: Believing that certain things are facts, whether based on good evidence or not.

2: Believing in God, believing in yourself, believing in the power of faith, etc. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with facts -- it has to do with training yourself to live a certain way.

A friend of mine once said -- "I believe all those stories about Jesus are true, whether they happened or not." She wasn't being irrational. But learning how to live in the world is a lot more than getting the facts right.

Religion is myth. Story-telling. But some stories are a lot better to believe in than others. Some can even save people and turn their lives around. Religious "faith" should be a matter of consciously choosing what to "believe in" -- whether or not you think it's factual.

I find it very sad that so many people today seems to assume that "believing in God" is that same as having strong opinions about certain facts, i.e. "God really exists." I don't believe in facts about God -- that's not what's important.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, I don't see why special should be taken to mean biologically special.

Our genome is around 98% identical to chimps and we consist of the same basic molecular building blocks as all other living organisms. Ergo, we are not biologically special compared to other species.

I'm not saying that the position that everything is relative is not relative, but that it holds in my own relative belief system. This is self consistent for a relativist, but not for an absolutist. This is why you think there is a contradiction.

If it is your mere belief (rather than objective fact) that a position is correct, you have no justification for arguing it whatsoever, so you are still contradicting yourself. If we assume that your credentials are correct, you do not live your life as a relativist. You use mathematical physics rather than voodoo science to solve problems, which indicates that you are not a relativist.

Similarly, since we can't prove certain things (like if the world exists independently of our senses, or whether God exists), I would say we have no reason to assume that any particular choice is the correct one.

If I don't exist, who are you talking to? Furthermore, if there is no reason to assume that any particular choice is correct, then the position that "there is no reason to assume that any particular choice is correct" also has no reason at all for why it should be accepted as valid. You are positing the same fundamental contradiction in all relativist belief systems.

In science, the choices are that the world does exist independently etc. That is the "frame of reference".

This is not what we mean by frame of reference in physics.

Have you read any philosophy of science? It certainly does use induction.

Again, science relies on deduction, not induction.

This is one of the central problems in the philosophy of science that many people work on.

The "problem" of induction is really just a problem for supernaturalists, since they believe that the identity of objects can be violated at any time by a very powerful and unpredictable supernatural force.. Induction is perfectly consistent in a materialist worldview.

You mention Popperian falsifiability, this is an example of a belief system, to be contrasted with logical positivism.

It is not a belief system in the sense that it is accepted without reason.

In response to your final comment, I would have no need to "inflate my credentials" if I wasn't continually set upon for having "a profound misunderstanding of basic physics".

No, you try to prop up your "profound misunderstandings of basic physics" by inflating your credentials. This is clear because the content of your comments do not match what the would have been had you really had the credentials you claim you have.

 

[Moridin]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.

Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

Not at all, since we have reasons to accept 1, rather than 2.

 

[drankin]

Not at all, since we have reasons to accept 1, rather than 2.

And group 2 has reasons to accept 2, rather than 1. Regardless, having a reason isn't a requirement.

 

[WaveJumper]

Let's try this a different way.

Group 1: Belief in things based on physical evidence only.

Group 2: Belief in things not based on physical evidence only.

I see two separate belief systems.

Not at all, since we have reasons to accept 1, rather than 2.

Where in Group 1 do you see explanation as to why the universe is fine tuned to make life possible? Would turning a blind eye to something so weird and profound make the problem disappear?

I am sure you know the fundamental constants appear to have exactly the right values. If they were slightly smaller or bigger, atoms, stars, planets and people simply wouldn’t exist. So if we were to dig a little deeper than the boring obvious, what could we say about the story behind the scenes, really?
This is a gnawing, unsettling question: Why? Why are all physical constants exactly the way they are? Every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. So what, or who, set the rules?

PS. I am not religious, I am merely seeking a deeper and fuller explanation than the blatantly obvious.

 

[robertm]

Where in Group 1 do you see explanation as to why the universe is fine tuned to make life possible? Would turning a blind eye to something so weird and profound make the problem disappear?

I am sure you know the fundamental constants appear to have exactly the right values. If they were slightly smaller or bigger, atoms, stars, planets and people simply wouldn’t exist. So if we were to dig a little deeper than the boring obvious, what could we say about the story behind the scenes, really?
This is a gnawing, unsettling question: Why? Why are all physical constants exactly the way they are? Every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. So what, or who, set the rules?

PS. I am not religious, I am merely seeking a deeper and fuller explanation than the blatantly obvious.

Well, you wouldn't expect to be asking that question if the universe wasn't fit to be inhabited by humans, you wouldn't be expecting anything at all. It couldn't be any other way.

Now as to the larger question of how and why the universe is the way it is, the science of cosmology is making valiant attempts at progress. Theorization, observation, experimentation, and the development of technology is the only practicle means to answer meaningful questions.

You get nowhere by referring the question 'upward', as I think you agree.

 

[WaveJumper]

Well, you wouldn't expect to be asking that question if the universe wasn't fit to be inhabited by humans, you wouldn't be expecting anything at all. It couldn't be any other way.

That's not an explanation at all. What if a cow jumped to the Moon? Would you use this "scientific" explanation to state that - "If there wasn't a cow that could jump to the Moon, we wouldn't have been able to talk about cows jumping to the Moon". In practice, you could thus provide an "explanation" for anything, incl. winning the lottery 722 times in row, because if someone hadn't won it 722 times in a row, we wouldn't have been able to talk about it now. I am sure you wouldn't tell your boss(if you have one) that you crashed the company car because... if you hadn't crashed it, you both wouldn't be talking about it at all. Right?

You get nowhere by referring the question 'upward', as I think you agree.

Well, if 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of all events and processes in the universe can have an explanation, I'd expect the other 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% to have one as well.

 

[madness]

Moridin, I will answer each point in turn:

- I will repeat why should special mean biologically special?
- Of course it is only a belief that truth is relative, just as it is only your belief that science is not a belief system.
- I study mathematical physics as an interesting subject, that does not mean I subscribe to it religiously, I still see it as a system of beliefs. I am not critisizing science in any way, I don't think it is possible to gain any knowledge without first laying down some foundational assumptions.
- I made it clear that I was making an analogy about frames of reference in physics, of course a system of beliefs is not a frame of reference in physics.
- I will repeat: science does use induction, I gave a concrete example in my last post, here is the wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction . If you think David Hume and Bertrand Russel were "supernaturalists" then induction is a problem for supernaturalists. The problem of induction has nothing to do with the supernatural.
- Whether it is reasonable to accept something depends on your belief system, for the logical positivists falsifiability was not acceptable. It really is a belief.
- The only times I have referred to my credentials were when you said "a mathematical physicist should know this" or commented on my "profound misunderstanding". I am really not trying to inflate them. Having a knowledge of physics does not exclude me from seeing things from a different point of view.

 

[madness]

Also, why do you think that having having "reason" to accept something means it is no longer a belief? I would argue that this is precisely what makes it a belief. Copernicus has reason to accept that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. This turned out to be false. Of course this is how science progresses, but it illustrates the point that science really is a system of beliefs.

 

[turbo]

I am sure you know the fundamental constants appear to have exactly the right values. If they were slightly smaller or bigger, atoms, stars, planets and people simply wouldn’t exist. So if we were to dig a little deeper than the boring obvious, what could we say about the story behind the scenes, really?
This is a gnawing, unsettling question: Why? Why are all physical constants exactly the way they are? Every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. So what, or who, set the rules?

We study the universe and we see patterns. With the patterns, we speculate about laws, and derive "constants" so we can make sense of the patterns. If you or I ceased to exist, the universe would still do what it does, and the loss of our appreciation of the patterns and our agreement on the values of the "constants" would not matter a bit.

I do not believe that every cosmologist agrees that this can hardly be a coincidence. Certainly, those that subscribe to anthropic arguments can make that appeal, but that hardly includes all people with an interest in cosmology. It's similar to the rationalization of something unexpected (like seeing a car with your phone number on its license plate) and after the fact wondering "Wow! what are the odds of THAT?".

 

[madness]

I've always thought the anthropic principle was a bit of a copout. In any case the question can almost be rephrased as "why is the universe exactly the way it is?", with the obvious answer "if it wasn't it would be different". I also find it strange that we assume other universes would be so incredibly similar to ours that they would have a gravitational constant and plack's constant etc.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, I will answer each point in turn:

- I will repeat why should special mean biologically special?
- Of course it is only a belief that truth is relative, just as it is only your belief that science is not a belief system.
- I study mathematical physics as an interesting subject, that does not mean I subscribe to it religiously, I still see it as a system of beliefs. I am not critisizing science in any way, I don't think it is possible to gain any knowledge without first laying down some foundational assumptions.
- I made it clear that I was making an analogy about frames of reference in physics, of course a system of beliefs is not a frame of reference in physics.
- I will repeat: science does use induction, I gave a concrete example in my last post, here is the wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction . If you think David Hume and Bertrand Russel were "supernaturalists" then induction is a problem for supernaturalists. The problem of induction has nothing to do with the supernatural.
- Whether it is reasonable to accept something depends on your belief system, for the logical positivists falsifiability was not acceptable. It really is a belief.
- The only times I have referred to my credentials were when you said "a mathematical physicist should know this" or commented on my "profound misunderstanding". I am really not trying to inflate them. Having a knowledge of physics does not exclude me from seeing things from a different point of view.

- No, you misunderstand. When I say humans are not special, I mean not special in the biological sense.
- If it is just your belief that relativism is valid, rather than an objective fact, then you of course have no justification to put forward that position at all in a rational discussion, just as you have no justification at all to put forward the proposition that "blue is the best color" in a rational discussion, because such statements are of course subjective.
- It may be your sincere belief that science uses induction, but that is not the case objectively. Objectively, science uses deduction. Evolution is of course a clear example of how deduction is used in science. The "problem" of induction is indeed only a problem for supernaturalists since they believe that powerful supernatural entities can disturb reality and violate the identity of objects at any time. The validity of induction is perfectly consistent with materialism, since materialism holds that all objects have an identity by definition and that further, objects act in accordance with their identity by definition.
- No, falsifiability is not a belief, since there are objective reasons as to why falsifiability is valid.
- The problem of course is that there is no "other [equally valid] point of view". There is only that which is true, and that which is false.

 

[Moridin]

Also, why do you think that having having "reason" to accept something means it is no longer a belief? I would argue that this is precisely what makes it a belief. Copernicus has reason to accept that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. This turned out to be false. Of course this is how science progresses, but it illustrates the point that science really is a system of beliefs.

No, science is a methodology for discovering empirical facts. A belief is just a bunch of propositions you believe, not know. Belief =/= knowledge. This is where your relativism falters.

 

[madness]

- I understand that you mean special as biologically special - my point is that humans can be considered special in other ways, such as their higher awareness and ability to ask questions about their own existence.
- All statements asserting a fact are based on some fundamental assumptions. The statement that "relativism is invalid" requires as much belief as the statement "relativism is valid.
- I agree that science uses deduction, but it also uses induction. Induction is used between observing a phenomena and asserting a "law of nature". There need not be any supernatural force to render induction invalid. I previously gave the example of dropping many different masses and observing that they all fall with the same acceleration. We therefore postulate (assume) that all masses are affected equally by gravity. If we found that masses of exactly 2.6785 kg fall twice as fast, induction would have been wrong. One might argue "induction has never led us astray in the past, so we should trust it" and this is the fundamental problem - you have to use induction to justify induction. Why should we assume that something which has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future? It is a fundamental assumption in science.
- There are not objective reasons why falsifiability is valid. We take it as a priori because it seems reasonable. The logical positivists took the opposite view, which shows that even within science there can be differing sets of beliefs.

I agree that science is a methodology - or more precisely an epistemology. Of course we need to be clear and distinguish between science as a body of knowlegde and science as the method for obtaining knowlegde here. The scientific method pertains more closely to what you said in your last post. The scientific method is really a set of beliefs about what constitutes a valid way to obtain knowlegde.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Hey, does anyone have any insight to theistic evolution(the idea that God used evolution to bring about humankind) and why or why not it really makes sense? t'would be awesome if you have some answers.

Tor

The idea is to not rely on pure science or pure theology to explain things. It is easier to picture a god as a creator, who utilizes scientific tools such as evolution. God in this case is more or less of an overseer rather than the driving force behind every little action, though some would assert that God chooses not to actively influence us despite being able to do so.

 

[Moridin]

- I understand that you mean special as biologically special - my point is that humans can be considered special in other ways, such as their higher awareness and ability to ask questions about their own existence.
- All statements asserting a fact are based on some fundamental assumptions. The statement that "relativism is invalid" requires as much belief as the statement "relativism is valid.
- I agree that science uses deduction, but it also uses induction. Induction is used between observing a phenomena and asserting a "law of nature". There need not be any supernatural force to render induction invalid. I previously gave the example of dropping many different masses and observing that they all fall with the same acceleration. We therefore postulate (assume) that all masses are affected equally by gravity. If we found that masses of exactly 2.6785 kg fall twice as fast, induction would have been wrong. One might argue "induction has never led us astray in the past, so we should trust it" and this is the fundamental problem - you have to use induction to justify induction. Why should we assume that something which has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future? It is a fundamental assumption in science.
- There are not objective reasons why falsifiability is valid. We take it as a priori because it seems reasonable. The logical positivists took the opposite view, which shows that even within science there can be differing sets of beliefs.

I agree that science is a methodology - or more precisely an epistemology. Of course we need to be clear and distinguish between science as a body of knowlegde and science as the method for obtaining knowlegde here. The scientific method pertains more closely to what you said in your last post. The scientific method is really a set of beliefs about what constitutes a valid way to obtain knowlegde.

- If not from biology, where does these "special" properties come from?
- Yes, there are objective reasons as to why falsifiability is reasonable. See Carl Sagan's dragon for description. It isn't simply assumed to be reasonable a priori
- No, there are reasons why "relativism is false" is valid, such as the internal contradictions in such as worldview. Also, just as before if everything is based on assumptions and therefore invalid, the position that everything is based on assumptions and therefore invalid is then also based on assumptions and equally invalid.
- I have already justified induction from the materialist perspective and show that induction is intrinsically invalid from a supernaturalist position. Not really sure what you are getting at here.

 

[madness]

- You are assuming everything can be reduced to biology - ie reductionism. This is not true. A more appropriate holistic examination shows we are different from other animals. Other animals. I have explained this several times.
- Carl Sagan's dragon is not an objective reason. It is an argument for why we should accept it as a priori.
- There are no internal contradictions in the relativist view. Of course you see contradictions because you assume from the outset that there is an absolute set of truths. You assume the premise. I didn't say that everything was invalid because it is based on assumptions. Making fundamental assumptions is the only way forward, otherwise no progress could be made.
- You simply stated "induction is a problem for supernaturalists". I gave an explanation of why no supernatural forces are involved, and that it was David Hume (who is most certainly not a supernaturalist) who put forward the most common form of the problem. I'm not sure if you read my explanation of induction, but it didn't involve an objects identity being violated. Induction is the assumption that things will happen in the future as they have done in the past. I am not arguing that we should reject this assumption, I am just pointing out that it is an assumption which is being made.

 

[Belzy]

One could say "all of this universe is a big Von Neumann type device" created to produce life/DNA as as part of its own "life cycle". After all is it even here if we are not here to see it? We are just a fishbowl crystal garden. Doomed to a big crunch.

 

[Moridin]

- You are assuming everything can be reduced to biology - ie reductionism. This is not true. A more appropriate holistic examination shows we are different from other animals. Other animals. I have explained this several times.
- Carl Sagan's dragon is not an objective reason. It is an argument for why we should accept it as a priori.
- There are no internal contradictions in the relativist view. Of course you see contradictions because you assume from the outset that there is an absolute set of truths. You assume the premise. I didn't say that everything was invalid because it is based on assumptions. Making fundamental assumptions is the only way forward, otherwise no progress could be made.
- You simply stated "induction is a problem for supernaturalists". I gave an explanation of why no supernatural forces are involved, and that it was David Hume (who is most certainly not a supernaturalist) who put forward the most common form of the problem. I'm not sure if you read my explanation of induction, but it didn't involve an objects identity being violated. Induction is the assumption that things will happen in the future as they have done in the past. I am not arguing that we should reject this assumption, I am just pointing out that it is an assumption which is being made.

- Science has proven the reductionist position and refuted holism pretty thoroughly. It may be that everything is reducible to biology yet contain (biological) emergentism. This does of course not change the fact that we are not biologically special.
- No, it is a justification for falsifiability, since he states reasons as to why falsifiability is preferable.
- No, there are contradictions within the relativist worldview since they assume that relativism is absolute, so their own worldview falls to its own deconstructionism and therefore cannot be valid.
- Yes, I have proven that the "problem of induction" is just problematic from supernaturalist worldviews do to their intrinsic uncertainty and entirely defensible within the materialist perspective, which no such uncertainty exists. I am not claiming that Hume is a supernaturalist, just that the problem he say only applies for a supernaturalist perspective with the justification I have made in several posts above.

 

[madness]

- It is utterly false that science has refuted holism. For the tenth time, biologically special isn't the only way to be special.
- Of course Carl Sagan's dragon is a justification for falsifiability. It is still not an objective reason. It justifies the belief that we should use falsifiability as a measure of truth.
- It is you who assumes absolutism, that is why you see contradictions.
- Induction is not defensible from the materialist perspective. You have not addressed any of the points I made. I cleary showed that it was an assumption which is made in science.

 

[Moridin]

- It is utterly false that science has refuted holism. For the tenth time, biologically special isn't the only way to be special.
- Of course Carl Sagan's dragon is a justification for falsifiability. It is still not an objective reason. It justifies the belief that we should use falsifiability as a measure of truth.
- It is you who assumes absolutism, that is why you see contradictions.
- Induction is not defensible from the materialist perspective. You have not addressed any of the points I made. I cleary showed that it was an assumption which is made in science.

- If science has not refuted holism, why is the core disciplines of science filled with reductionism, whereas the anti-science fringe is filled with holistic positions and practices?
- Yes, Sagan's dragon is an objective justification for falsifiability as the demarcation criteria of science. It is objective since its validity does not disappear if we all stopped believing in it.
- No, relativism undermines itself since the premises of relativism implies that the premises of relativism are suspect.
- I have proven the reliability of induction from the materialist perspective several times now. Please go back and re-read my posts. I have addressed all the so-called "points" you have made.