Kansas and God
-
Are they for real??!!?? :wtf: http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html[^]
They are doing this all wrong. Leave science as science and provide extensive and credible religious/social studies alongside it. That would mean teaching about ID, and all religious views on the origins and development of life. Hell, it might even do some good to the world if those kids grew up with a bit more tolerance and understanding for others, rather than trying to push their own beliefs as gospel.
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flickrDie Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen
-
A systematic approach requires scientific method in order for it to be called science, by definition. This precludes anything of the same subjective nature as spirituality. His hands felt the grasp of strong white hairs, and he knew he would not survive this fungus.
ProffK wrote: A systematic approach requires scientific method in order for it to be called science, by definition. This precludes anything of the same subjective nature as spirituality. Well, that's where I disagree. I systematic approach can be used with things of a subjective nature as well. After all, isn't that what pschology is? IMO, science has hamstrung itself by claiming to deal only with things that are observable (yet, there's a lot of science out there that's based purely on mathematics and has no corresponding observable quality to it). Subjective things are very observable to the person experiencing them, it's just that it's an inner observation. Why should these experiences, essentially the "experience of self", which is observable only to the experiencer, be precluded from scientific research? So, IMO, we do need a broader definition of the word science--something that acknowledges that subjective phenomena are as valid, in terms of research and study, as objective phenomena. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
SoapBox! Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Rob Graham wrote: SoapBox! Why? Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
Are they for real??!!?? :wtf: http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html[^]
-
ProffK wrote: A systematic approach requires scientific method in order for it to be called science, by definition. This precludes anything of the same subjective nature as spirituality. Well, that's where I disagree. I systematic approach can be used with things of a subjective nature as well. After all, isn't that what pschology is? IMO, science has hamstrung itself by claiming to deal only with things that are observable (yet, there's a lot of science out there that's based purely on mathematics and has no corresponding observable quality to it). Subjective things are very observable to the person experiencing them, it's just that it's an inner observation. Why should these experiences, essentially the "experience of self", which is observable only to the experiencer, be precluded from scientific research? So, IMO, we do need a broader definition of the word science--something that acknowledges that subjective phenomena are as valid, in terms of research and study, as objective phenomena. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Science certainly isn't limited to things which are observable; however, it is limited to things which can be disproven. The scientific method requires the ability for a supposition to be proven false; subjective issues cannot be proven true or false, and therefore science doesn't enter into it. However systematic the approach you use to religion, philosophy, interior decorating, whatever, study and analysis of subjective issues will never be science.
-
ProffK wrote: A systematic approach requires scientific method in order for it to be called science, by definition. This precludes anything of the same subjective nature as spirituality. Well, that's where I disagree. I systematic approach can be used with things of a subjective nature as well. After all, isn't that what pschology is? IMO, science has hamstrung itself by claiming to deal only with things that are observable (yet, there's a lot of science out there that's based purely on mathematics and has no corresponding observable quality to it). Subjective things are very observable to the person experiencing them, it's just that it's an inner observation. Why should these experiences, essentially the "experience of self", which is observable only to the experiencer, be precluded from scientific research? So, IMO, we do need a broader definition of the word science--something that acknowledges that subjective phenomena are as valid, in terms of research and study, as objective phenomena. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
I thought philosophy and theology already had this covered. Theological reasoning is generaly highly structured and formal, though its essential tenets are not questioned - possibly why it has been likened to "Intellectual Tennis without the net". The far reaches of theoretical physics seem to be way beyond what we are going to be able to demonstrate empiricaly for a long time, so to an extent I agree with your point that some areas of science are highly abstract. Physics has always had a separation between experimentalists and theorists, and the gap between them is steadily increasing; designing experiments or finding suitable methods of observation at a cosomological scale has to be pretty damn tricky. I do not believe however that this requires redefining Science as a systematic approach to damn near anything. Where exactly would you draw the line? Kabbalah? Numerology? Iconography? Theta Waves? Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
Science certainly isn't limited to things which are observable; however, it is limited to things which can be disproven. The scientific method requires the ability for a supposition to be proven false; subjective issues cannot be proven true or false, and therefore science doesn't enter into it. However systematic the approach you use to religion, philosophy, interior decorating, whatever, study and analysis of subjective issues will never be science.
vincent.reynolds wrote: study and analysis of subjective issues will never be science. So, studying people's emotions, there's phobias, how people feel love or hate or fear, or things like schizophrenia, can't be science? If we didn't study these things to begin with, when there was no knowledge of any physical basis of their workings, how would we have come to discover the very physical basis of neuro-biology? Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
I thought philosophy and theology already had this covered. Theological reasoning is generaly highly structured and formal, though its essential tenets are not questioned - possibly why it has been likened to "Intellectual Tennis without the net". The far reaches of theoretical physics seem to be way beyond what we are going to be able to demonstrate empiricaly for a long time, so to an extent I agree with your point that some areas of science are highly abstract. Physics has always had a separation between experimentalists and theorists, and the gap between them is steadily increasing; designing experiments or finding suitable methods of observation at a cosomological scale has to be pretty damn tricky. I do not believe however that this requires redefining Science as a systematic approach to damn near anything. Where exactly would you draw the line? Kabbalah? Numerology? Iconography? Theta Waves? Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
Ryan Roberts wrote: I do not believe however that this requires redefining Science as a systematic approach to damn near anything. Where exactly would you draw the line? Kabbalah? Numerology? Iconography? Theta Waves? But see, that's the problem. We consider these things ridiculous because the people that purport to approach them scientifically are making a mockery of the idea of a systematic approach. It's not the subject that is the problem and that we so easily laugh at, it's what some people call a systematic approach that's so seriously flawed. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
vincent.reynolds wrote: study and analysis of subjective issues will never be science. So, studying people's emotions, there's phobias, how people feel love or hate or fear, or things like schizophrenia, can't be science? If we didn't study these things to begin with, when there was no knowledge of any physical basis of their workings, how would we have come to discover the very physical basis of neuro-biology? Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Just because the study and analysis of subjective issues will never be science, that doesn't mean that they never lead to science, or contribute ideas that influence scientific progress. I think you're unnecessarily assuming that I think we can only study and/or derive benefit from things that are science. Philosophy is not science; this does not mean that we should not study philosophy. In fact, areas of philosophical study can and have made their way into areas of scientific study -- astronomy, physics, cosmology, etc. However, you can state a psychological conclusion as definitively as you want; if the only "proof" in the end is the word or behavior of a human being ("how do you feel now?" / "I feel better"), this is not science.
-
ProffK wrote: A systematic approach requires scientific method in order for it to be called science, by definition. This precludes anything of the same subjective nature as spirituality. Well, that's where I disagree. I systematic approach can be used with things of a subjective nature as well. After all, isn't that what pschology is? IMO, science has hamstrung itself by claiming to deal only with things that are observable (yet, there's a lot of science out there that's based purely on mathematics and has no corresponding observable quality to it). Subjective things are very observable to the person experiencing them, it's just that it's an inner observation. Why should these experiences, essentially the "experience of self", which is observable only to the experiencer, be precluded from scientific research? So, IMO, we do need a broader definition of the word science--something that acknowledges that subjective phenomena are as valid, in terms of research and study, as objective phenomena. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
Your argument would be a lot better if you substituted "science" for "knowledge". I know, I know,... science means knowledge in greek and during renascence they also meant the same. But not today, science has changed into a much more complex system of investigation. I strongly agree that subjective experiences can be a huge (or even the greatest) source of knowledge, just look at art and phylosophy. But a basis to what is now the highly systematic and methodic science, no. Another distinction is subjectivity as the object of study and as the studying method. Psychology studies (or at least should study) subjectivity. But should not study it using subjectivity (or only it). E.g.: would you consider psychoanalysis and the whole Freudian stuff as scientific? I think it is a very interesting knowledge, but it seems to have serious scientific flaws. Has anyone ever shown the id & superego in a test tube?
-
Are they for real??!!?? :wtf: http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html[^]
...advocates of intelligent design, [hold] that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it. ... And of course the most complex and well ordered component of the natural world is intelligence itself. Seems to me a case of man creating God in his own image. Steve Steve T
-
Are they for real??!!?? :wtf: http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html[^]
I lived in Africa for a few years and after seeing ostrich and crocdiles in the wild I concluded that the Designer was not only intelligent but had a sense of humor and a mean-streak a mile wide. ;) Steve T
-
They are doing this all wrong. Leave science as science and provide extensive and credible religious/social studies alongside it. That would mean teaching about ID, and all religious views on the origins and development of life. Hell, it might even do some good to the world if those kids grew up with a bit more tolerance and understanding for others, rather than trying to push their own beliefs as gospel.
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flickrDie Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen
Exactly. :) Anna :rose: Riverblade Ltd - Software Consultancy Services Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
I lived in Africa for a few years and after seeing ostrich and crocdiles in the wild I concluded that the Designer was not only intelligent but had a sense of humor and a mean-streak a mile wide. ;) Steve T
Duck-billed platypus. (God had a migraine that day)
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Duck-billed platypus. (God had a migraine that day)
Software Zen:
delete this;Nah, I think for the duck-billed platypus a rebelious angel must have snuck into God's lab and tried his hand on the creation machine without reading the instruction manual. ;) Steve T
-
Nah, I think for the duck-billed platypus a rebelious angel must have snuck into God's lab and tried his hand on the creation machine without reading the instruction manual. ;) Steve T