America's downward spiral.....

Bob in Iowa said:
Den4, thank you for the invitation to join your club of the unknowing, however I have always been of the opinion that unknowing is something that is best done on an individual basis. That way I am solely responsible for my own unknowledge. :)

I didn't know you could do unknowing things in solitary...I always was under the impression you had to be among others who told you you didn't know that to be responsible for your own unknowledge...well, shows you how much I didn't know.. :D

Why does everybody pick on Kansas? The other 49 states aren't doing much better :D
 
kirei_na_me said:
In this case, I'll happily join the 'willfully ignorant'... ;)

Be careful. And not just you. Most people out here might qualify. There is nothing more ignorant than those who assume that they--and only they--have all of the secrets of the universe under their bonnet. Nothing is the more "willfullly ignorant" than those who base their snotty superiority on assumptions.

Assume makes an ass out of you and me.

Don't get me wrong. I don't know for sure that you do not have all the secrets of the universe. Tell me you do and I will back off. In the meantime, keep in mind that it is the things that Charles Darwin did not explain that makes his theories all the more theories (where are all the millions of sub-species in between microbes and invertebrates, for example. Not in the fossil record, that is fershore! Does this make Darwin wrong? Hell no! But it sure as hell doesn't make it right, either).

Do I think Brother Ronnie in the Summer Tent Show Gospel Hour has all those secrets? Not really. But neither does the aetheist academic in his ivory tower of tenure.

So let's allow for the possibility that neither school has all the secrets.

Of course, you can go on thinking that you know it all if you want. If it makes you feel better.

Fac ut vivas!
 
Shooter452 said:
There is nothing more ignorant than those who assume that they--and only they--have all of the secrets of the universe under their bonnet. Nothing is the more "willfullly ignorant" than those who base their snotty superiority on assumptions.

Assumptions? like the basic premise of creationism in which it is assumed the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation as written in the book of Genesis is the irrefutable word of God?

As for a group of people who believe that they "have all the secrets of the universe under their bonnets", I think that the creationists come closer to fitting that definition than do the scientists engaged in the many scientific disciplines that comprise the field of evolutionary theory and research.
 
Bob in Iowa said:
Assumptions? like the basic premise of creationism in which it is assumed the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation as written in the book of Genesis is the irrefutable word of God?

As for a group of people who believe that they "have all the secrets of the universe under their bonnets", I think that the creationists come closer to fitting that definition than do the scientists engaged in the many scientific disciplines that comprise the field of evolutionary theory and research.

And yet Bob, they may well be correct. I don't think so, and you don't think so, but neither one of us know for sure. Assumptions. That is all that we have. It is a fatal flaw to assume that you are more righteous than your neighbor and you should know that, having observed those Bible thumpers so carefully.

Don't take a page out of their book.

As far as being closer, in the quest for ultimate knowledge I believe that a miss is as good as a mile. Unless you know it all, you probably do not know anything. The wisest man I ever met told me once that the more he learned, the more he discovered he did not know anything. I may have been impressed by the letters after his name, but he was not.

Science may be a path to wisdom, but no true scientist should ever tell you that it is the only path, or even the correct path. And every answer in science seems to only open up new questions.

You should know that.
 
Science may be a path to wisdom

Nope. It's a method. Wisdom has nothing to do with it.

every answer in science seems to only open up new questions.

Which is good, because we learn more by asking questions.

As far as being closer, in the quest for ultimate knowledge I believe that a miss is as good as a mile. Unless you know it all, you probably do not know anything.

Scientific methods aren't supposed to tell you all the meaning of the universe. It's a method of continually finding new information.
Think of it this way;
Science is here to tell you the rules of the game, but not the purpose.
Religion tells you a purpose. (Although it does try to tell you the rules, often unsuccesfully.)

The wisest man I ever met told me once that the more he learned, the more he discovered he did not know anything.

Wise words. :)
 
Another POV

Kind words, Pierrot. I appreciate your being civil.

I do not expect everyone to agree with me or even expect that I am necessarily correct (what do I know?). Isn't that just what I have been saying? Sitting back and smugly thinking that you have even the correct method to the exclusion of all others is in itself questionable.

And I disagree with your conclusion in only one respect. I believe that for some people science itself has become a religion. The "dogma" for them is the results of your "method" and not the method itself. A result that they might desire occurs--perhaps because it was the result that they sought in th first place (incorrect method, what?)--and it becomes a tenant of their "faith." That it might be bad science is often lost to the general public (peer review is often not made public record so the dissaproval of other researchers is not always known). That the results are "science" is all that is known. Sciences tends to be equally above reproach to a great many people who think about it, if they think about it at all. They do not know that there are bad scientists out there.

All I asked from the beginning is that we make allowences for the fact that despite all scientific evidence to the contrary some aborigine in the Northern Territory of Australia might have all the answers, and that we have not caught up to him, yet. That you and I might equally doubt that is hardly important.

To do otherwise is, to me, folly.

But again, thanks for your civility. Debate should be civil and often is less than that.
 
Shooter452 said:
Science may be a path to wisdom, but no true scientist should ever tell you that it is the only path, or even the correct path. And every answer in science seems to only open up new questions.

You should know that.

I would echo what Mad P said in response to your post, in that in science there is no presumption of wisdom, and that certainly finding new unknowns determines the direction of new theory and research.

It is interesting that your statement is one that I often hear from people who, while not being avid creationists, support, to some degree, the inclusion of creationism as an alternative theory in the science curriculum of public schools. The reason that I find this to be interesting is because one of the ways in which creationists attempt to cast doubt upon the validity of the scientific method is by criticising the very fact that science opens up new questions, and that there is often disagreement between scientists involved in the same field of research.


It is a fatal flaw to assume that you are more righteous than your neighbor and you should know that, having observed those Bible thumpers so carefully.

Don't take a page out of their book.

I'm not quite sure as to which "page" you are referring, but I certainly do not intend to claim any degree of righteousness here.


mad pierrot said:
The wisest man I ever met told me once that the more he learned, the more he discovered he did not know anything.

Exactamundo
 
Shooter -- my apology if the post above is out of sequence. I did not see your last post when I posted. That'll teach me to post before having the second cup of coffee :).

One of the things that I really like about this forum is that debate is usually done with civility and respect. You and I will most likely have to agree to disagree on this issue, but it is great that we have a forum to do so with civility.

--Bob
 
They do not know that there are bad scientists out there.

I couldn't agree with you more. As you said, everything is based on assumptions. What sets scientific analysis apart is that it makes the most reasonable assumptions, based on logic. Needless to say, some assumptions are more reasonable than others. (I can assume my girlfriend would only be mad at me if I forgot her birthday. I could also be making a wrong assumption. She might kill me.) What bothers me the most is the academics who are making an effort to make creationsim seem like a logical, reasonable assumption, when it isn't. Granted, it's a possiblity that it could be correct, but no more valid than me saying that you're a figment of my imagination. I do agree with your point. Yes, there are some bad scientists out there abusing their intellectual prowess. Of course, politicans and priests are by no means any less guilty.

But again, thanks for your civility. Debate should be civil and often is less than that.

Thank you! :) I appreciate your attitude as well. Far too often we see negative examples instead of good ones.
 
mad pierrot said:
The wisest man I ever met told me once that the more he learned, the more he discovered he did not know anything.

Wise words. :)

I don't consider myself wise, and I still know nothing or don't know anything, depending on how you want to look at it :D

some recent news on science or pseudoscience recently....

While this article may be a valid result of research, when they stick it next to a bunch of ads for pharmaceutical medication, it leads one to suspect that the data could be skewed?c. :D
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/6659
check out the site to see what I mean?c :D

this after I heard these items that really hinted at some possible skewed results both scientific and non-scientific research:in other words, you are to trust the scientists but not trust them at the same time :D

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4277950
Perchlorate Levels in Drinking Water OK
from Morning Edition, Tuesday , January 11, 2005

A report from scientists who advise the government concludes that the levels of the toxic chemical perchlorate currently found in drinking water do not pose a major threat to the nation's health. But an EPA report from 2002 -- and some environmental groups -- contradict that finding. NPR's Jon Hamilton reports.

Other links:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4277201
http://webcast.nationalacademies.org/#web0111

This one sounds like pseudoscience in the works... :D
Researchers Skeptical about Deer Whistles
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4277954
NPR's Chris Arnold reports on little gadgets called deer whistles. They attach to the front of a car and make a high-pitched sound that is inaudible to humans, but supposedly frightens deer and other animals off the road. Some users love them -- they insist the devices prevent collisions. Despite their unwavering loyalty, some researchers are skeptical that the whistles actually do anything.

First you are supposed to trust the FDA, then not trust them, then trust them again, then not trust them.... :D
Commentary: Search for Perfect Drug Safety a Mistake
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4277974
Commentator Russell Roberts argues that no drugs are perfectly safe and says the Food and Drug Administration should not have to pull drugs off the market because of dangerous side effects. He says patients and doctors should make the decisions about what treatment is best, not the government.

Ok, out of the entire group, this one sounds the most promising, as it has the potential, if it survives, to have a lasting effect on a great number of people :)
Nonprofit Drug Firm Targets Disease in Third World
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4277956
Hundreds of thousands of people die every year from multiple illnesses that mostly afflict people in the Third World. Unfortunately, drug companies see little profit in researching cures for such diseases. A nonprofit pharmaceutical company is working to change the industry's thinking. NPR's Laura Sydell reports.
 
Bob in Iowa said:
Shooter -- my apology if the post above is out of sequence. I did not see your last post when I posted. That'll teach me to post before having the second cup of coffee :).

One of the things that I really like about this forum is that debate is usually done with civility and respect. You and I will most likely have to agree to disagree on this issue, but it is great that we have a forum to do so with civility.

--Bob

No offense meant, none taken, Bob. We all tend to shoot from the lip out here at times and I find it prudent to low-ball my emotions in response so as not to crank up the volume. Still, even I can be a flaming ass, so in advance I beg your indulgence.

I think that the flavor of this Forum is conducive to good manners and better behavior. The Japanese are a polite society. While the rules are different there, I always found myself on my best behavior while in the homes of Okinawans. Their graciousness lays a heavy obligation on one when in their domain. It is difficult not to react in kind. Perhaps the attitude is the same here. *shrug* Makes sense to me.

Besides, old farts like you and I tend to be tolerant because we know there is more in ourselves to tolerate, what? *grin*

In any case, I am pleased to accept your appology. As my Hispanic neighbors say: da nada.
 
Shooter452 said:
Besides, old farts like you and I tend to be tolerant because we know there is more in ourselves to tolerate, what? *grin*

If nothing else, in growing older I have learned that in looking at most situations, whether to be annoyed or amused is a personal choice.
teeth.gif
 
mad pierrot said:
Damn it!

Everyone is just too nice here.

:D

Dunno 'bout you, but I prefer it that way. While I love to argue and debate, I prefer that it remain civil and that we all part--if not friends--at least with the agreement that we are all free to disagree.

You don't have to be a kumbayah-we-are-the-world type to think that way. Even reactionary types like me know the value of de-escalation, avoidance, and disengagement from confrontation.

Besides, I think that being nice in public is also evry Japanese, too. *wink*
 
Bob in Iowa said:
If nothing else, in growing older I have learned that in looking at most situations, whether to be annoyed or amused is a personal choice.
teeth.gif

Works for me!

*grin*
 
Judge Rejects School Board Evolution Stand
Jan 14, 8:49 AM (ET)

By Paul Simao

ATLANTA (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday ordered a Georgia school district to remove stickers challenging the theory of evolution from its textbooks on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution.

In a ruling issued in Atlanta, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said Cobb County's school board had violated the constitutional ban on the separation of church and state when it put the disclaimers on biology books in 2002.

The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
 

This thread has been viewed 2082 times.

Back
Top