Is there a scientific alternative to evolution?

Originally posted by bbarr
Your post makes no sense. Without minds, there can be no beliefs, that is an analytic truth. But facts are not mind-dependent. If every mind in existence believed that the Earth was flat, it would still be a fact that the Earth was roughly spherical.

I think speaking of mindless facts is pointless. Give me a fact that does not requirer a mind, and you will always employ a mind to give it. Minds and facts are inextricably tied together. I am not talking about belief -I'm talking about what is knowable. And an unknowable fact is not a in fact a fact. The unknowable fact would be a case of there being no mind to know there is no mind which is not knowable so is not a fact.

By my definition of fact - it must be knowable, and nothing can be known without a mind. The fact that the Earth is shaped like a sphere was knowable before it was known. So it was a fact before it was known.

Originally posted by Coletti
I think speaking of mindless facts is pointless. Give me a fact that does not requirer a mind, and you will always employ a mind to give it. Minds and facts are inextricably tied together. I am not talking about belief -I'm talking about what is knowable. And an unknowable fact is not a in fact a fact. The unknowable fact would be a case of there being ...[text shortened]... is shaped like a sphere was knowable before it was known. So it was a fact before it was known.

You are running together the notion of a fact with the notion of a justified assertion. Of course it requires minds to assert various claims. It does not require a mind for there to be facts. This is both an elementary and really important distinction, you are well-advised to keep it straight. Facts are those ways the world is to which our beliefs either correspond (when they are true) or fail to correspond (when they are false). The truth or falsity of a belief is determined by the relation of that belief to the facts; to the way the world is in and of itself. If you want knowledge to be objective, and you want to rule out relativism about truth (which we both want, I'm sure), then you need the notion mind-independent facts. Just because facts are the sorts of things that can be known, it does not follow that facts depend for their existence on minds. Similarly, just because rocks are the sorts of things that can be sat on, it doesn't follow that rocks depend for their existence on asses.

Originally posted by bbarr
You are running together the notion of a fact with the notion of a justified assertion. Of course it requires minds to assert various claims. It does not require a mind for there to be facts. This is both an elementary and really important ...[text shortened]... oesn't follow that rocks depend for their existence on asses.

😀 That last sentence did me in!

[Edit] I'm still working out my epistemology so I can't honestly argue too vigorously against your view. I am not certain I agree with a mind independence of knowledge - but I agree with the need to keep truth values of facts as objective and universal. Our differences may be partially a matter of my uncommon use of terms. Right now avoiding systematic contradictions is more important to me than getting my terms in conformity to popular usage. Does that make sense - maybe it won't until I get both usage and consistency worked out. 🙂

Originally posted by Coletti
😀 That last sentence did me in!

Well, we have to keep it fun, or what's the point? The only person who posts in these forums just to get pissed off is no1marauder, and that's only when the nurse is late with his enema! 😲

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm still working out my epistemology so I can't honestly argue too vigorously against your view. I am not certain I agree with a mind independence of knowledge - but I agree with the need to keep truth values of facts as objective and universal. Our differences may be partially a matter of my uncommon use of terms. Right now avoiding systematic contrad ...[text shortened]... e. Does that make sense - maybe it won't until I get both usage and consistency worked out. 🙂

Yep, that makes sense. Just keep in mind that our beliefs are true or false depending on how the world is independently of those beliefs. You will need some term or other to refer to ways the world is independently of belief; that is, you will need some term or other to refer to those aspects of the world that make beliefs either true or false. Some people call these aspects 'facts', others call them 'states of affairs that obtain'.

Originally posted by Coletti
How about this: there are no facts without faith.

Facts must be logically predicated on something, and that something must be logically predicated on something else, until you either come full circle, or you find out what is axiomatic ...[text shortened]... eve your axiom may be faith in perception. What do you guys think?

I suppose you may be right. However I don't like the word 'faith' since it's too loaded. People will assume all kinds of things simply because of the word choice.

I disagree that the existence of perceptions is an axiom of mine. Well, maybe it is, but it's self-evident. Calling it 'faith' or 'assumption' does not make sense to me. A better candidate for 'faith' might be that one can take perceptions and interpret them to give further knowledge than the simple knowledge that perceptions exist in this moment. Also, another might be that I can trust my memory at least to some extent. This might be part of the first 'faith' concept though. Memory does seem to be a perception itself.

Your statement that 'there are no facts without faith' doesn't seem to fit in well with the way KJ is talking however. He seems to imply a clear distinction between them; facts and faith being entirely different and independent, and facts having some reliable truth of some sort that faith does not.

How about this: there are no facts without faith.

Facts must be logically predicated on something, and that something must be logically predicated on something else, until you either come full circle, or you find out what is axiomatic ...[text shortened]... eve your axiom may be faith in perception. What do you guys think?

Yes.. and it doesn't alter this that some times people contrapose facts and faith. The positing and operating on the basis of a difference here is a matter ulitmately of faith.

Occams Razor requires faith...faith in elegance and simplicity. The idea that there is an objective world compeletely discrete and independent of "subjectivity" wherein facts present themselves to consciousness.... this is a metaphyiscial determination that empirical science cannot prove and must accept by faith.

Originally posted by XHerakleitos
The idea that there is an objective world compeletely discrete and independent of "subjectivity" wherein facts present themselves to consciousness.... this is a metaphyiscial determination that empirical science cannot prove and must accept by faith.

That is nonsense. Just because a metaphysical view cannot be proven does not mean that, if it is accepted, it is accepted on faith. I can't prove that I am not now dreaming, but that doesn't mean my belief that I'm awake is faith-based. You are assuming that any belief not based on reasons sufficient to establish it with certainty is based on faith. If true, this assumption of yours would entail that the vast majority of your beliefs are ultimately based on faith; even your beliefs about your name, phone number, address, etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]This is simply an assumption on your part isn't it, and a major one?

This is an assumption. Whether it's 'major' or not depends on your opinion I guess. In human experience assuming trends will continue as they have before has proven very useful. For example, Newton's Laws are simply claims that trends will continue to act as they ha ...[text shortened]... llenge the assumption that the pattern of pixels on your monitor represents someone's thoughts?[/b]

Here's an example. In order for your posts to appear on our monitors, you have to do some really specific things. Since there are an infinite number of things you could try, the chance of you randomly choosing the correct one is infinitesimally small. Your argument that facts are facts and everything else is faith means that no matter what facts you observe, you can come to any conclusion you want. Nothing can help you come to the conclusion that you must type a certain way in order to make your posts come out in normal English. Yet, somehow, against the odds, you manage to do it. Why? Because you assume that your memories of how to write something on a computer should be followed. You trust your memories to help guide you in how you should act. It's purely assumption that this is a good idea, yet you do it. How did you manage to stumble on exactly the right assumptions needed to help you make internet posts if you question all assumptions and treat all assumptions as equally valid? How come you can dismiss all of the arguments of scientists who say the Earth is more than 6000 years old, yet you accept without question all these assumptions that allow you to make internet posts? How come you don't question those assumptions? If you're going to be as hardcore about questioning assumptions as you seem to be, you should be unable to do anything and would (if you were consistent) die of starvation because you'd make up some other assumption than the one that says if you eat you won't be hungry any more.

Nonsense, I’m not at all suggesting I can observe any fact I want and
come to any conclusion I want; I’m actually arguing against such a
thing, while it seems to me that is exactly what you are doing and
arguing for. Facts and conclusions are not necessarily the same thing,
and that is where much of our debate really is taking place. Our
readings in electrical circuitry and the outcomes are in the here and
now to observe and manipulate as we will; we don’t have to wait
billions of years for a voltage drop to occur when we test it. That is a
substantial difference between taking a reading now on an event that
is taking place now, and looking at what we believe a rate is, and then
coming to a conclusion that something must have taken place billions
or years ago, or that something will take place billions of years from
now.

You want to argue that typing on a keyboard for internet
communication is the same thing as reaching a correct conclusion on
events that supposedly took place billions of years ago. You may
believe that is true; however, it is really quite a leap of faith in my
opinion. I just think your logic is greatly flawed if you actually believe
that to be the case. With our internet connection all testing and
results can be done now and repeated; however, with archeology it
isn’t an exact science when we look at the distant past. It is like
saying because you can use reading glasses to read things close up
you can see things far away just as accurately with those same
glasses. The father away for the present we are looking the less likely
we can call anything a fact.
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]I am saying as I throughout this discussion
and others that there is a fine line between calling something a fact
that isn’t.

It seems like to you a fact is something that cannot be doubted and involves no assumptions. I ...[text shortened]... eless. There are no facts by the way you seem to define the word.[/b]

Well, since nothing can be absolutely proven without any possibility of doubt, there is nothing that is not faith and belief. So using the words is not helpful to communication.

The way you seem to define the word 'fact' makes the word utterly useless. There are no facts by the way you seem to define the word.

I do believe that there are facts and that any statement can be taken
to extremes just as you’re questioning all memory saying it must be
taken on faith is. I do believe we are creatures of faith that God has
designed the universe where we act on faith more than many of us
would like to admit. I've no trouble measuring the length of piece
of wood and seeing that it is 10 inches long then calling that a fact.
While looking at the rotation of a planet around a star, and trying to
figuri out and predicting where that planet will be done by looking at
all the current factors. Where we believe the planet will be, will not be
a fact, it is not the same thing as measuring a piece of wood length.
We can look at all the current factors on the planet’s movements, and
as we take them call those factors, facts. Yet for all of that, if we
leave something out, if something unforeseen occurs that effects the
rotation, than all of our calculations would now be wrong. The same
thing with looking at the distant past too, it can never really be called
a fact, the unknown forbids it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[snip] Facts and conclusions are not necessarily the same thing,
and that is where much of our debate really is taking place. Our
readings in electrical circuitry and the outcomes are in the here and
now to observe and manipulate as we ...[text shortened]... at something must have taken place billions
or years ago, [snip]

Facts are conclusions rooted in observations made sensible (and capable of being shared) because of agreed upon assumptions. Scientists in several fields (all the relevant ones) make observations than can be repeated and tested, hence legitimizing their shared assumptions. They find as fact that the universe is billions of years old, but so far lack the precision of knowing how many billions.

Faith is he substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith that fails to identify its assumptions is blind faith; faith that insists on the things contrary to what is seen is stupid faith. Untested assumptions might be embraced provisionally by faith, but after testing are no longer faith.

Science originates in faith, but it does not proceed through faith. True faith does not contradict observation, but it may hope to find an essential unity between belief and observation. The best of intelligent design may long for this unity, but most of what passes by that name is creationism (anti-science rooted in stupid faith) in new clothes (those worn by the emporer of legend). Intelligent design does not present itself as an alternative to evolution, but as a theory underlying the whole. In so far as it does contest evolution itself, it fails as science.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Facts are conclusions rooted in observations made sensible (and capable of being shared) because of agreed upon assumptions. Scientists in several fields (all the relevant ones) make observations than can be repeated and tested, hence legitimizing their shared assumptions. They find as fact that the universe is billions of years old, but so far lack the prec ...[text shortened]... theory underlying the whole. In so far as it does contest evolution itself, it fails as science.

To back up Wulebgr, I will repost the links that I gave in the "Evolution Cruncher" thread in hopes that people will actually check them out. The current ID popular movement, a spectre of the long deceased Paley watch-maker argument re-animated by the Fellows o f the Discovery Institute in Seattle, is much more than just a criticism of evolution. In the eyes of Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Phillip Johnson, and the rest, it is a whole sale attack on modern thought in every avenue of art or science.

Again the I present to you all the "Wedge" document:

Background: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html

Article:
http://www.kcfs.org/Fliers_articles/Wedge.html

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Facts are conclusions rooted in observations made sensible (and capable of being shared) because of agreed upon assumptions. Scientists in several fields (all the relevant ones) make observations than can be repeated and tested, hence legit ...[text shortened]... n so far as it does contest evolution itself, it fails as science.

Yea, I agree with you, "...agreed upon assumptions" are exactly what
I'm talking about. You preach to the choir and hear what is acceptable
to the choir, if you do not agree with the assumptions that are
acceptable to the choir; you are not part of the choir. So when another
idea or assumption is brought forward it is labeled not choir worthy.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, I agree with you, "...agreed upon assumptions" are exactly what
I'm talking about. You preach to the choir and hear what is acceptable
to the choir, if you do not agree with the assumptions that are
acceptable to the choir; y ...[text shortened]... ption is brought forward it is labeled not choir worthy.
Kelly

I cannot tell if you are expressing it straight or ironic here. Who is the "you" here? Are you telling me I'm preaching to the choir, or are you speaking generally about the social construction of assumptions in a deivided society with competing churches (including secular ones)?

The assumptions scientists agree upon have been established through arguments supporting their merits. They may ultimately be untested, or even untestable (testability, of course, is an epistemological method rooted in assumptions), but they do not resemble blind faith, and can only be called faith with a very restricetd definition of that term.

I don't think you agree with me at all.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I cannot tell if you are expressing it straight or ironic here. Who is the "you" here? Are you telling me I'm preaching to the choir, or are you speaking generally about the social construction of assumptions in a deivided society with competing churches (including secular ones)?

The assumptions scientists agree upon have been established through argum ...[text shortened]... aith with a very restricetd definition of that term.

I don't think you agree with me at all.

On numerous occasions, KellyJay has asserted something along the following lines conerning faith:

If you believe some proposition, and your reasons for believing that proposition are insufficient to prove that proposition; that is, your reasons are insufficient to establish with certainty that your belief is true, then your belief is based on faith.

I'm interested in knowing if KJ still subscribes to this notion of faith, or if he has revised his opinion since he and I discussed evolution months ago.