dagblog - Comments for "Why Tenure Exists, Part 1"

They're designed for

EmmaZahn — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:43:39 +0000

In reply to OK, fair enough. I respect

They're designed for lay-people, not experts.

But they and others like them are what stir up lay people for or against concepts, ideas and issues about which they may or may not have ever given any thought to and may never think of again. People take things in almost by osmosis, accepting rather than learning and thinking about almost everything, never really knowing. It happens to the best of us. How many of us have the means to really explore most topics first hand. Those experts you speak of can be just as easily deceived as the most disinterested lay person IF s/he does not challenge what s/he thinks s/he knows.

OK, fair enough. I respect

Verified Atheist — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:24:12 +0000

In reply to Sorry to be so long replying.

OK, fair enough. I respect your voice on enough other topics to risk creating any ill-will.

FWIW, I recognize that meaning of Darwinism, but for me that usage has as much meaning as Quantum Physics. That's not to say it has no meaning, but for my "ears" it didn't fit what I was inferring you were trying to say.

As for TV shows, NOVA's not bad, but I always take those as hypotheticals that try to fill in the gaps, just as A&E's biographies, etc. They're designed for lay-people, not experts.

Sorry to be so long replying.

EmmaZahn — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:55:10 +0000

In reply to @EmmaZahn, I put this down

Sorry to be so long replying. I made a few other attempts but gave up. It is like that saying that goes around business offices from time to time:

"I know you understand what you think I said. I am just not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

In my mind, we are really too far apart on the subject to have a fruitful discussion in this media. That and other things are demanding my attention just now.

A couple of links to share:

Darwinism is an actual school of philosophy with its own internal as well as external disputes. Enjoy.

If you have not already, watch NOVA | Becoming Human to see how much myth is spun out of very few facts -- very few.

it is almost universally

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:00:29 +0000

In reply to @EmmaZahn, I put this down

it is almost universally recognized that we don't know how life arose on this planet, although there are many competing hypotheses (what lay people might call theories, except that in the scientific sense they're hypotheses, not theories). What might irk some is that among many scientists the one hypothesis rarely considered is that God started it. There are multiple reasons for this, but foremost amongst them is that such a hypothesis doesn't yield any meaningful means of testing it. That doesn't disprove it, of course.

I think this is key. Scientists necessarily come up with many ideas or hypotheses about all kinds of things like the origin of life on this planet. Emma seems to be saying that when they state these ideas or hypotheses...or feel strongly about them...they've entered into the realm of "belief" and are no different from the pastor who preaches on Genesis because these hypotheses have yet to be proven or tested.

But why restrict scientists from talking about what they think is true? If they could only talk about what they've tested and proven to be true, how would they ever venture into new territory? And why keep the public out of the discussion? As long as you make the distinction between what you think is true or may be true and what you know to be true, you're on dry ground.

We go from the unknown, but suspected or hypothesized, to the better known through testing. This is the necessary progression of ideas. I imagine there are some hypotheses which scientists don't even know how they would test, even if they could test them. Einstein's theory predicted many things that were only observed and confirmed decades later. I don't know if he posited the necessary conditions for testing these predictions or not.

But I do believe that hypotheses, generally, stand on a foundation of tested theory. That is, based on what we know we know, it makes some sense to think that this unknown X looks or acts like this. In some cases, a hypothesis requires rethinking what we "know" we know, so there's also that. But hypotheses aren't just fanciful shots in the dark. I don't believe scientists spend time trying to substantiate hypotheses for which there is no reason to believe they are or could be true.

I "believe" this is what the scientist was saying when he said he didn't believe the Shroud was real. And he was careful to say he didn't know this to be the case.

@EmmaZahn, I put this down

Verified Atheist — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:16:06 +0000

In reply to Why Tenure Exists, Part 1

@EmmaZahn, I put this down below to avoid the narrowing of paragraphs, but I've thought some more about what bothered me about your comments, and a big part of it is the choice of the word "Darwinism" as an epithet. At face value, I don't understand the difference between "Darwinism" and "being a scientist who believes that evolution explains how species differentiate". However, in thinking about it and what else you've read here, I think you're using that word to mean a particular belief in the origin of first life on this planet, or abiogenesis. Indeed, Darwin did write:

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

However, this was in a letter to a friend (J. D. Hooker), and not something he ever published, as far as I know. I mention this because if this is what you mean by "Darwinism", you should probably use a different term, such as abiogenesis.

Now, assuming that is what you meant, I'd say that at the high school level this topic is rarely, if ever, taught. At the college level, it's also rarely mentioned in introductory classes, and even at the research level, it's almost always (if not exactly always) put in terms of a hypothesis at best. I.e., it is almost universally recognized that we don't know how life arose on this planet, although there are many competing hypotheses (what lay people might call theories, except that in the scientific sense they're hypotheses, not theories). What might irk some is that among many scientists the one hypothesis rarely considered is that God started it. There are multiple reasons for this, but foremost amongst them is that such a hypothesis doesn't yield any meaningful means of testing it. That doesn't disprove it, of course.

There seems to be two types

Elusive Trope — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:45:40 +0000

In reply to As a matter of fact I do

There seems to be two types of "religion" being discussed. One is to denote any group of beliefs which are not based on direct evidence of facts, a matter in which one bases one conclusions on some amount of faith in some source of knowledge. The other denotes a group of beliefs based on faith which involves matters of spirituality, that which is generally beyond the concrete world (usually referred to as the natural world).

Science has a lot of beliefs that require a certain amount of faith - such as the faith in the truth to be found in mathematics that will someone to believe in M theory with its strings and eleven dimensions, even though they will admit we may never be able to physically see those strings.

The general difference between science and something like a spiritual religion is that science technically is designed to adapt to new evidence emerging from the source(s) of knowledge whereas the spiritual religions tend to have a set source of knowledge (e.g. the Bible) which is unchanging, its truths set regardless of experiences and phenomenon which may emerge over time.

One reason Zen Buddhism resonates with me is that it focuses one's understanding on one's experiences. It does not claim to provide all the answers, just one method to discover the answers.

Maybe it would have helped if

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:27:35 +0000

In reply to As a matter of fact I do

Maybe it would have helped if you'd put forward an example of a scientist overreaching. The fellow who said he "believed" it was a fake is not a good example for all the reasons adduced above.

Thus far, all you're doing is saying a pox on both houses and you hate extremists of all types...or something.

As a matter of fact I do

EmmaZahn — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:48:02 +0000

In reply to Seriously, Emma? People who

As a matter of fact I do think it is dishonest to dress up religious beliefs (or any others) and teach them as science. My point somewhere in this multi-day dialogue was/is that, for some, Darwinism is just as much a religion as any other. This thread is evidence of that. Moving on now.....

Seriously, Emma? People who

acanuck — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:55:06 +0000

In reply to Sigh. Internet conversations

Seriously, Emma? People who think it's dishonest to dress up religious beliefs and teach them as science are, in your words, "smartass boys and girls who get cheap thrills by casting doubts?"

Some of us simply think the purpose of education shouldn't be to make kids stupider. You seem to believe there are two competing extremes here, and the truth lies in somehow splitting the difference. I believe you're extremely wrong.

Sigh. Internet conversations

EmmaZahn — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:29:41 +0000

In reply to I won't get into the Scopes

Sigh. Internet conversations take so long.

Can you really separate the current controversy from the ongoing dispute that started even before the Scopes trial? It is just the latest in an ongoing saga.

At the extremes edges on one side you have rigid Bible literalists who fear any doubts raised about its inerrancy and at the other, some smartass boys and girls who get cheap thrills by casting doubts. (There is a lot of psychology at work at both edges.) The rest of us end up trying to reconcile the extremes but end up at odds ourselves.

Having been punk'd by both sides at different points in my life, I refuse to continue to just accept whatever either says, general consensus or not. The internet has been very helpful in sorting things out. Sometimes now I think I am cursed like the Ancient Mariner: If something does not stand up to reason or experience, it must be challenged.

In this case, I began by admiring the language of the bill in using the phrase 'biological origins'. It is the tricky sort of word play more often associated with the other side. It amused me. Biological origins really are Evolutionists'* weakest point because it is non-falsifiable as the existence of God and it really does not fall into the predictive arena as claimed. That aspect is purely speculative until and if it can be recreated. Claiming otherwise really is overreach.