Why I Believe Truth=Experience

[Corvus]

Among other things, mutation, migration, genetic drift, and mate selection.

A. Mutation is part of evolution by natural selection, without mutation there would be no evolution full stop. It is mutants that are naturally selected against or for.
B. Migration?
C. Genetic drift, far enough. We understand that well enough.
D. Sexual selection is part of natural selection, it is a natural selection pressure like any other.

 

[Corvus]

Natural selection including sexual selection, since reproduction is a natural selection pressure, is the overarching cause of species diversity.

 

[VioletVortex]

I agree, empirical evidence is the best testament to truth that there is, but it must be substituted under certain circumstances, especially with spiritual and philosophical matters, which are both extremely complex.

 

[Corvus]

I agree, empirical evidence is the best testament to truth that there is, but it must be substituted under certain circumstances, especially with spiritual and philosophical matters, which are both extremely complex.

As far as I am concerned spiritual matters may be curious, but not substantial enough to construct a worldview on. Philosophy is well to be fair, sometimes useful. It is the mother of science, but a very irrational mother at times. Science is the King's Highway.

 

[PureX]

So don't take my word for it!

Don't take your own word for it.

 

[PureX]

I don't think you understand that while absolute objectivity is impossible, the most objective way of looking at things is scientifically so.

OOHHH! So you meant that relatively subjective objectivity! Wherein YOUR subjectively objective opinions are more accurate than my subjectively objective opinions because your subjectively objective opinions are based on SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS!

We know our objectivity is limited but it is good enough to build computers spaceships super conductors smart phones small pox vaccine scientific calculators etc....am I getting through? Do you copy over?

And yet we remain too stupid to control our own numbers relative to our available resources, too selfish share what resources we do have, and so insanely greedy that we're destroying the one and only known environment in all the universe that we can survive in! All hail the mighty wisdom of science!

If I tell you time dilation is real, you don't have to take my word for it, or my subjective bias. You can do the experiment yourself. To demonstrate it. It involves a turn table and two synchronized stopwatchs. Very simple.

If I told you a few hundred years ago that the Earth is a flattened disc, you wouldn't have had to take my word for it, you could easily have seen the truth of this for yourself, by climbing the nearest hill and just looking for yourself.

All hail the might wisdom of science!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Don't take your own word for it.

Agree, take the direct observation, practical, demonstrable experience, firsthand

 

[PureX]

Agree, take the direct observation, practical, demonstrable experience, firsthand

Sure, because our eyes and understanding never fool us!

Here's my suggestion: let's all pursue honesty, rather than "the truth", and just accept that we're wrong about most things most of the time, and always will be.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is in the nature of scientific consensus to change over time.

Something that makes it absolutely wonderful. It is in sharp contrast--and entirely all for the better--to the "timeless, eternal, and unchanging" god. It is so blatantly clear that these "men of god" were not getting their facts from an all knowing god.
We humans learned a way to embrace our ignorance and limited understandings and develop a concept for systematically obtaining and evaluating data. God and every Christian that I've met that I know of, however, does not want to admit god made mistakes. But that's such a horrible and tragic concept when you think about it, because it means improvement is not possible. It's rather very defeatist, and it plays into this "it will be better in the next life" mentality.

 

[Politesse]

Something that makes it absolutely wonderful. It is in sharp contrast--and entirely all for the better--to the "timeless, eternal, and unchanging" god. It is so blatantly clear that these "men of god" were not getting their facts from an all knowing god.
We humans learned a way to embrace our ignorance and limited understandings and develop a concept for systematically obtaining and evaluating data. God and every Christian that I've met that I know of, however, does not want to admit god made mistakes. But that's such a horrible and tragic concept when you think about it, because it means improvement is not possible. It's rather very defeatist, and it plays into this "it will be better in the next life" mentality.

And yet, if the universe didn't have firm, eternal, unchanging principles, science would not work at all. Uniformitarianism isn't really a law, you know, unless there is a Lawgiver --- but if not, and I presume you would say there is not, then it's an only assumption... based on observations of the fundamental character of the universe. Without that basic, all-pervasive consistency which undergirds all of existence as we have known it, inference based on past or shared experience would be invalid.

 

[Politesse]

A. Mutation is part of evolution by natural selection, without mutation there would be no evolution full stop. It is mutants that are naturally selected against or for.

All of these properties require one another, none of them would make sense in isolation, which is why the biological sciences didn't grind to a satisfied stop in the 1870's - it was obvious that remaining mysteries lurked all about.

B. Migration?

Physical migration of an organism from one region to another.

C. Genetic drift, far enough. We understand that well enough.

I have no idea what you mean by "well enough". Do you have some utterly misguided notion that the major questions of genetics are "solved"? We are in the middle of a huge revolution in how genetic expression is understood, with major discoveries happening by the week. These are very exciting times, and we are lucky to have witnessed the frontier years of epigenetic studies. I don't think we have a clue yet about the full scale of what we have to discover.

D. Sexual selection is part of natural selection, it is a natural selection pressure like any other.

You could sort of see it as a form of natural selection and some do categorize it as such, but it is not "like any other", it follows entirely different trajectories, and they are unique to the organism.

I don't see the appeal, if you love biology, of reducing it to inadequately simple ideas. It is much more interesting in its full scale and variability. And if you are attempting to come down on the side of empiricism, as per the topic of this thread, I definitely don't see the appeal. Part of the reason for the emphasis scientists place on empirical observation is that the real world is almost inevitably more chaotic and complex than human modelling adequately predicts for; the natural world perpetually corrects our ideas about it, not the other way around. The scientist will always be the pupil, not the master, of the senses.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And yet, if the universe didn't have firm, eternal, unchanging principles, science would not work at all. Uniformitarianism isn't really a law, you know, unless there is a Lawgiver --- but if not, and I presume you would say there is not, then it's an only assumption... based on observations of the fundamental character of the universe. Without that basic, all-pervasive consistency which undergirds all of existence as we have known it, inference based on past or shared experience would be invalid.

I was referring to god's omniscience and the claim it is eternal and unchanging, which is a bad thing because his "holy text" got some basic facts about the world, biology, geometry, linguistics, and the universe wrong. But god is right. This is how we get Young Earth Creationists. Because god and his word are eternal and unchanging. But we humans went the opposite route, and we are so much better off for doing so.

 

[Politesse]

I was referring to god's omniscience and the claim it is eternal and unchanging, which is a bad thing because his "holy text" got some basic facts about the world, biology, geometry, linguistics, and the universe wrong. But god is right. This is how we get Young Earth Creationists. Because god and his word are eternal and unchanging. But we humans went the opposite route, and we are so much better off for doing so.

There is actually an immense variety of beliefs in and about gods; Young Earth Creationists are a very loud minority within Christendom and Islam, but hardly an exclusive or authoritative source about the potential of perspectives on the divine, or science and empiricism for that matter. You should look into the more creative and educated side of theistic beliefs, you might find that the many traditions and innovations of our age are quite interesting!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sure, because our eyes and understanding never fool us!

Here's my suggestion: let's all pursue honesty, rather than "the truth", and just accept that we're wrong about most things most of the time, and always will be.

Well yes, either way we have little chance of determining absolute truth

The wise man knows himself a fool!

 

[Corvus]

I don't see the appeal, if you love biology, of reducing it to inadequately simple ideas. It is much more interesting in its full scale and variability. And if you are attempting to come down on the side of empiricism, as per the topic of this thread, I definitely don't see the appeal. Part of the reason for the emphasis scientists place on empirical observation is that the real world is almost inevitably more chaotic and complex than human modelling adequately predicts for; the natural world perpetually corrects our ideas about it, not the other way around. The scientist will always be the pupil, not the master, of the senses.

Mindless worthless gibberish.

 

[Corvus]

All of these properties require one another, none of them would make sense in isolation, which is why the biological sciences didn't grind to a satisfied stop in the 1870's - it was obvious that remaining mysteries lurked all about.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You could sort of see it as a form of natural selection and some do categorize it as such, but it is not "like any other", it follows entirely different trajectories, and they are unique to the organism.

Please....you have no idea what you are talking about,

 

[Corvus]

If I told you a few hundred years ago that the Earth is a flattened disc, you wouldn't have had to take my word for it, you could easily have seen the truth of this for yourself, by climbing the nearest hill and just looking for yourself.

That must be the most laughable ignorant post I have ever read. It reveals exactly that you have no understanding of the scientific method. Pathetic.

 

[Corvus]

OOHHH! So you meant that relatively subjective objectivity! Wherein YOUR subjectively objective opinions are more accurate than my subjectively objective opinions because your subjectively objective opinions are based on SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS!

You are truly devoid of understanding. Your laughable beliefs are not backed up by anything resembling fact or reason.

 

[Politesse]

You have no idea what you are talking about.



Please....you have no idea what you are talking about,

If that were so, you would be able to muster a rational response, yes?

The four major drivers of natural evolution can be found in any introductory biology textbook, it's not as though I am saying anything remarkable here.

 

[osgart]

the only immutable truth is to reject evil and be of virtue is immutable truth. all other things change.