I need really good information.

[Autodidact]

I take issue with no part,

You people are just to serious. In philosophy facts don't even have to matter. The philosophy professor could have said this just to inspire a reaction. You are just spinning in circles because you can't see what I am saying. I understand exactly your point but your point in only valid in your philosophy.

What I am saying and thank you for the definition is that using the scientific method you could never test the above hypothesis. First you would have to get the common ancestor and then recreate this world exactly an impossiblility.

You can test aspects of the theory. You can collect data showing this possible but the scienctific methods specifically calls for testing the hypothesis.

It is just a word game sorry you don't understand how to play.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were serious. Actually you're just spewing any nonsense that you don't mean, just for lulz? And basically you're just a troll? O.K., in future I will ignore your contributions, except to correct any false impressions you might give to other people who thought you were serious too.

No, that's not how the scientific method works, and no, you don't have to have the common ancestor, any more than you need to fly to the sun to figure out how far away it is.

 

[bobhikes]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were serious. Actually you're just spewing any nonsense that you don't mean, just for lulz? And basically you're just a troll? O.K., in future I will ignore your contributions, except to correct any false impressions you might give to other people who thought you were serious too.

No, that's not how the scientific method works, and no, you don't have to have the common ancestor, any more than you need to fly to the sun to figure out how far away it is.

I mean all that I say, I am sorry you can't see it as a valid response. Feel free to ignore my contributions and correct as you see fit. They typically stand on there own anyway.

 

[Autodidact]

I mean all that I say, I am sorry you can't see it as a valid response. Feel free to ignore my contributions and correct as you see fit. They typically stand on there own anyway.

Now I'm really confused. What did you mean by:
It is just a word game sorry you don't understand how to play.?

If you're serious, then I'm willing to explain how the scientific method actually works, and how it was applied to evolution. If you're playing a word game, I'd rather not waste my time.

 

[painted wolf]

Philosophy is supposed to be more than just word games.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

It never ceases to amaze me that some people speak so confidently and authoritatively on topics with which they lack even a passing familiarity. Is there a name for that phenomenon? It's almost the Dunning-Kruger effect, but that deals with competence and the disparity between one's actual and perceived competence is meant to improve with exposure to new, accurate information. What is the effect where the gap widens or remains unchanged with exposure to new, accurate information?

 

[bobhikes]

So I got into an argument with my philosophy teacher about evolution. She claims it cannot be proven with the scientific method. I (the only one in the class) called her out. I began to state to fossil record, and she went on something about how the first guy to propose that (which I know this can't be true because Da Vinci proposed this long before the ToE came about) was wrong about his estimations and that carbon dating is so unreliable that it doesn't prove evolution, and because things can fossilize in less than millions of years evolution is not true. She didn't give me the chance to delve deeper, but next week I am wanting to bring the big guns.
I am wondering if anyone can provide me with some very good articles about using biology, genetics,the fossil record, and anything else to support evolution.

Couple of questions, what philosophy was the topic of the class. How did evolution fit or not fit into the lesson plan if you wouldn't mind. I am guessing her coment had more to do with the philosophy of the day then with evolution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Couple of questions, what philosophy was the topic of the class. How did evolution fit or not fit into the lesson plan if you wouldn't mind. I am guessing her coment had more to do with the philosophy of the day then with evolution.

The class is intro to philosophy, and the chapter was "the search for god." She was lecturing about the chapter, and then began some anti-evolution debate.
The best we both agreed on was that really neither side can fully prove their idea. I stated that all you have to really do is continue the process of reversing what has been happening for billions of years after the Cambrian explosion, and her counter was that the rapid appearance of the major organisms may have been due to some outside intervention (which she did mention aliens since I threw the idea of extra-terrestrial life being the "designer" to point out the folly of assuming designer equals god), or planted or created, which technically cannot be dis-proven. Which that technically how it is, and since that had been made clear I didn't see any reason to push it further.

 

[Alceste]

The class is intro to philosophy, and the chapter was "the search for god." She was lecturing about the chapter, and then began some anti-evolution debate.
The best we both agreed on was that really neither side can fully prove their idea. I stated that all you have to really do is continue the process of reversing what has been happening for billions of years after the Cambrian explosion, and her counter was that the rapid appearance of the major organisms may have been due to some outside intervention (which she did mention aliens since I threw the idea of extra-terrestrial life being the "designer" to point out the folly of assuming designer equals god), or planted or created, which technically cannot be dis-proven. Which that technically how it is, and since that had been made clear I didn't see any reason to push it further.

Several million years is not what I would call "rapid". Perhaps it could be considered "fast" relative to the billions of years involved in the whole history of the earth, but not good evidence of tinkering. Why would an omniscient tinkerer spend millions of years creating new organisms that were almost all going to be extinct in another few million years?

Your professor is ignorant, I'm afraid. And don't fall pray to the "neither side can offer proof" argument unless you are prepared to equate over a hundred years of vigorous empirical investigation, all of it supporting evolution, with a couple thousand years of unsubstantiated, fanciful speculation. In my view, information deduced through empirical investigation has truth value several orders of magnitude higher than whimsey.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your professor is ignorant, I'm afraid. And don't fall pray to the "neither side can offer proof" argument unless you are prepared to equate over a hundred years of vigorous empirical investigation, all of it supporting evolution, with a couple thousand years of unsubstantiated, fanciful speculation. In my view, information deduced through empirical investigation has truth value several orders of magnitude higher than whimsey.

The evidence is indeed overwhelming, but never-the-less their is always a chance that isn't how it happened. All we have is our best educated guess to evaluate what we have. It may be in the future we will discover something that will call for the entire theory of evolution to be redesigned from the ground up, or discarded entirely.

 

[Sunstone]

And don't fall pray to the "neither side can offer proof" argument unless you are prepared to equate over a hundred years of vigorous empirical investigation, all of it supporting evolution, with a couple thousand years of unsubstantiated, fanciful speculation. In my view, information deduced through empirical investigation has truth value several orders of magnitude higher than whimsey.

I was about to attempt to make the same point, but I see you beat me to it. You also did a much better job than I would have. The only thing I would like to add is that it seems many of us have a tendency to equate two sides in an argument -- to see them as more or less equivalent. And I think that might be because we think of the argument as being between people (who are moral equals) rather than being between competing truth claims (which cannot logically be equal).

 

[Alceste]

I was about to attempt to make the same point, but I see you beat me to it. You also did a much better job than I would have. The only thing I would like to add is that it seems many of us have a tendency to equate two sides in an argument -- to see them as more or less equivalent. And I think that might be because we think of the argument as being between people (who are moral equals) rather than being between competing truth claims (which cannot logically be equal).

That is an excellent point. I'm oblivious to the people factor, myself. In fact, I had to be trained by my very patient friends to give some consideration to the fact that ideas are created by people, and that when I am savagely critical of an idea I find little truth value in, I can often hurt the feelings of the people who came up with it. That came as a surprise, since most of my own ideas get even worse treatment (from me) than the ideas of others and I'm not at all bothered.

I'm more tactful with my friends now for the sake of their feelings, but this is the internet. Everybody's ideas get the same treatment as mine here.

 

[Autodidact]

Couple of questions, what philosophy was the topic of the class. How did evolution fit or not fit into the lesson plan if you wouldn't mind. I am guessing her coment had more to do with the philosophy of the day then with evolution.

I'm wondering this too. I used to be a philosophy major and there was plenty of actual philosophy to keep us busy. The topic of evolution never came up.

 

[Autodidact]

The class is intro to philosophy, and the chapter was "the search for god." She was lecturing about the chapter, and then began some anti-evolution debate.
The best we both agreed on was that really neither side can fully prove their idea. I stated that all you have to really do is continue the process of reversing what has been happening for billions of years after the Cambrian explosion, and her counter was that the rapid appearance of the major organisms may have been due to some outside intervention (which she did mention aliens since I threw the idea of extra-terrestrial life being the "designer" to point out the folly of assuming designer equals god), or planted or created, which technically cannot be dis-proven. Which that technically how it is, and since that had been made clear I didn't see any reason to push it further.

She needs to leave Biology to the Biologists. She is obviously frighteningly ignorant of the subject. "Sudden" = six million years, and is quite consistent with ToE.

You're both wrong to talk about "both sides can't prove." She's not even competent to teach philosophy. Science is never proven, and doesn't try to prove. Science = empirical = evidence. (logic = proof.) This is philosophy, and she should know that. The two are not comparable. One is theology, one is science. Science is never about God. She's a yo-yo and should be fired.

 

[Autodidact]

The evidence is indeed overwhelming, but never-the-less their is always a chance that isn't how it happened. All we have is our best educated guess to evaluate what we have. It may be in the future we will discover something that will call for the entire theory of evolution to be redesigned from the ground up, or discarded entirely.

All we have is a little thing called science. True, science cannot be known absolutely, and it's valid to discuss that subject in a philosophy class, but it applies equally to heliocentrism, and to the question of whether you exist outside your professor's head. It's on that level of uncertainty only, as certain as any testable empirical theory.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All we have is a little thing called science. True, science cannot be known absolutely, and it's valid to discuss that subject in a philosophy class, but it applies equally to heliocentrism, and to the question of whether you exist outside your professor's head. It's on that level of uncertainty only, as certain as any testable empirical theory.

Sure we have science. But it is ignorant to believe what we think is how it happened now will not be changed with the discovery of new evidence that gives new insight. Einstein even doubted his own numbers showing the universe is expanded until new information was presented.
Science should never be cut off to alterations when necessary, and obviously there is much we have not discovered. For all we know at the bottom of the ocean or in some mountain range somewhere there is a meteor, or some other space debre, that carried with it not the ingredients for life on earth, but the original life forms on earth. That wouldn't be a huge change, but it would make any theories on how life managed to be created on its own irrelevant. Or maybe the failed experiments of some alien race were dropped off here to see how they would fair. Or maybe God planted the evidence to test people. There really is no way of knowing at a 100% certainty of any of it.

 

[Alceste]

Shadow Wolf, there's uncertainty that stems from the sincere desire to learn the truth and the suspicion that "certainty" without evidence is a racket for charlatans and fools, then there's uncertainty that stems from wilful ignorance and a desperate desire to feel certain of something that is untrue. Scientists generally practice skepticism (on the job, anyway), which is uncertainty in the first sense. Your professor practices the latter kind. Not all forms of dubiousness are created equal.

It is extremely unlikely that any new evidence will unseat the theory of evolution. It is the most evidentially substantiated scientific theory in the history of mankind. There is NO contradictory evidence. Not one single hair follicle of one single being, living or dead, that the theory of evolution does not adequately explain. Moreover, all the alternative notions of biological speciation thus far advanced are conclusively disproven by the evidence in favour of evolution. Is it possible that a completely different theory will one day supplant it? Sure, but only just. The norm in science is for new evidence to add to our understanding rather than completely change it.

 

[Rakhel]

My intro to philosophy did talk about evolution(the idea that humans are evolved from apes). He was looking for the argument and seeing if you understood the idea behind philosophy, which he said was to argue.
Your prof found someone that doesn't start an argument with "nah-uh." She is running with it. I think you guys are so hung up on the idea that she may be a YEC that have lost sight of what is going on.

 

[painted wolf]

The class is intro to philosophy, and the chapter was "the search for god." She was lecturing about the chapter, and then began some anti-evolution debate.
The best we both agreed on was that really neither side can fully prove their idea. I stated that all you have to really do is continue the process of reversing what has been happening for billions of years after the Cambrian explosion, and her counter was that the rapid appearance of the major organisms may have been due to some outside intervention (which she did mention aliens since I threw the idea of extra-terrestrial life being the "designer" to point out the folly of assuming designer equals god), or planted or created, which technically cannot be dis-proven. Which that technically how it is, and since that had been made clear I didn't see any reason to push it further.

Well, this changes things. Have fun with philosophy class. :beach:

She's still wrong about radiometric dating, but....meh.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Sure we have science. But it is ignorant to believe what we think is how it happened now will not be changed with the discovery of new evidence that gives new insight. Einstein even doubted his own numbers showing the universe is expanded until new information was presented.
Science should never be cut off to alterations when necessary, and obviously there is much we have not discovered. For all we know at the bottom of the ocean or in some mountain range somewhere there is a meteor, or some other space debre, that carried with it not the ingredients for life on earth, but the original life forms on earth. That wouldn't be a huge change, but it would make any theories on how life managed to be created on its own irrelevant. Or maybe the failed experiments of some alien race were dropped off here to see how they would fair. Or maybe God planted the evidence to test people. There really is no way of knowing at a 100% certainty of any of it.

Yes, that is clearly the case for all of science. Why highlight evolution in particular? Science is not 100% certain, by its nature. That's not a reason to criticize any particular scientific theory.

A philosophy teacher should understand that is the nature of science. If she wants to discuss empirical vs. theoretical knowledge, that is a valid subject for a philosophy class.

But to question ToE because it is not certain is not a valid criticism. It is as certain as science gets.

 

[Autodidact]

My intro to philosophy did talk about evolution(the idea that humans are evolved from apes). He was looking for the argument and seeing if you understood the idea behind philosophy, which he said was to argue.
Your prof found someone that doesn't start an argument with "nah-uh." She is running with it. I think you guys are so hung up on the idea that she may be a YEC that have lost sight of what is going on.

Maybe. Does that sound right, Shadow?