The difference between "Evolution" and "Theory of Evolution"

[JAGERBOY]

What assertion haven't I supported? I'm having trouble following what you want me to do. "Constructivism holds... that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought (assuming a disbelief or lack of faith in a superhuman God)." You don't believe in God, so if you were a constructivist, you would hold that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought. This implies a rationalistic, solipsistic world-view. Is your question why should you be bothered with any possible (yet unknowable) external world given such a world-view?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point since I came into that conversation late, which was my fault for not going back. That said, I was assuming you were supporting that position, which I see now is incorrect. That said x 2, it was still a question I wanted your opinion on, even if you don't support it. I would like to hear a constructivist argument as to why we should care.

[IAMRED]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point since I came into that conversation late, which was my fault for not going back. That said, I was assuming you were supporting that position, which I see now is incorrect. That said x 2, it was still a question I wanted your opinion on, even if you don't support it. I would like to hear a constructivist argument as to why we should care.

From what I've read about it - which has admittedly been a wiki article - I do agree with constructivism. Why? Because:

1. It's opposed to positivism's demarcation of knowledge. Great.
2. It highlights the experimental, model impositions in scientific investigation. Spot on.
3. It promotes diversity in methodology. Brilliant - sounds like Feyerabend.
4.

Constructivism criticizes objectivism, which embraces the belief that a human can come to know external reality (the reality that exists beyond one's own mind). Constructivism holds the opposite view, that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought (assuming a disbelief or lack of faith in a superhuman God).

As for your question why should I, as a constructivist, care [about believed propositions pertaining to external world?], I care because, as a theist in general and Calvinist in particular,

I believe there is an external world on the basis of divine revelation. I can't claim to know the external world by means of my senses, but as I am a determinist, I equally can't help believing propositions which pertain to an alleged external world. That's relevant, in my case, because my beliefs impact my choices. I can be judged for intending something on the basis of my beliefs whether or not it is the case that I can know I've fulfilled what I've intended. If I intend to poison a person whom I believe exists (as well as the poison), whether or not I have actually poisoned them or whether or not there is even a person to poison (or a poison, for that matter) is immaterial to whether or not my intention can be judged to be moral or immoral. I'm not a utilitarian. So that would be at least one example in answer to your question.

I wouldn't be able to give an answer to your question without appealing to beliefs I hold aside from constructivism, which is why I mentioned I would be able to give you an answer on atheistic grounds.

[JAGERBOY]

From what I've read about it - which has admittedly been a wiki article - I do agree with constructivism. Why? Because:



As for your question why should I, as a constructivist, care [about believed propositions pertaining to external world?], I care because, as a theist in general and Calvinist in particular,

So how would you define an "external world"?

[Mr Beer]

In fact, atheist belief is that everything exist due to random chance. Which is to say existence has no meaning. The two are never comparable.

Incorrect in so many ways.

1. There is no atheist belief as to why 'everything exist' except to say what it is not due to.
2. Something occurring not through the magical sky wizard is not the same as random.
3. How something came about does not provide the meaning of existence.

I note you decided to attack my analogy, the reason you did this is not because my it's flawed (hint: analogies are required to not be exactly the same as what they are elucidating) but because it's easier than trying to rebut my point about your dishonesty.

Is that why it's known as the "FACT" of evolution?

The difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution has been explained to you many times on this very forum. You are only pretending to be confused because you are lying. Again, typical dishonest creationist behaviour.

When we refer to the theory of evolution we are discussing the theory. The same when we discuss the theory of gravity. When we refer to the fact of evolution we call it 'evolution', in the same way that we refer to 'gravity', not the 'fact of gravity' or the 'liar KRANE' as opposed to the 'fact of liar KRANE'.

A better reason would be you lack the skill and knowledge to explain it better. Permit me to assist you: evolution is the theory that higher life forms evolved from lower life forms. Anything beyond that does not alter it's core meaning.On the contrary, they are very different.

Sentence 1: typical KRANE content-free but condescending. In light of this, sentence 2 is highly ironic, because that's not what evolution is and that's not what the theory of evolution means. Since you are pretending that you haven't had this explained to you before, I'm going to do it again. That way posters who see this and then see you stating the same lies again later can see that you are a liar.

Evolution (the FACT) is the process by which the combination of random mutation and environmental factors causes life forms to evolve to become more fit for their environment. Note: there is nothing about 'higher' or 'lower' in this sentence. The THEORY of evolution explains HOW this occurs.

On the contrary, they are very different. However, if you prefer to take a non-conventional perspective. You could say that they both can be classified as the ability to change. Although one involves a much greater time period than does the other.

Again, wildly incorrect. They are the same thing. There is no time frame required for a change to be an example of evolution - you only need an offspring which a heritable mutation.

[IAMRED]

So how would you define an "external world"?

Good question. I have understood it to be referring to a physical world independent of my mind.

[Sublime82]

However, if you prefer to take a non-conventional perspective. You could say that they both can be classified as the ability to change. Although one involves a much greater time period than does the other.

I'll go straight to the point. The terms "macro" and "micro" evolution do not exist within biology. This is because they are understood to be the same thing and there is no reason to differentiate them. This, by very definition, is the conventional perspective.

[JAGERBOY]

Good question. I have understood it to be referring to a physical world independent of my mind.

Well, how would you ever observe this other world if it weren't for your mind? I'm using "mind" liberally here to also encompass after you die, you would need to have some sort of sensory abilities to realize that there was this other world. Even if you want to say we are just some immaterial soul that floats around after we die. If we can't EVER "observe" it in some way, then that's essentially saying it doesn't exist OR, it's irrelevant.

[BaguetteFO]

On what basis can one claim one empirical theory is better than another (if that's even justifiably possible) is what is in question. I'd be interested in your answer.

Since numerous people are complaining that the thead is getting derailed, I will no more reply on this subject in this thread, but I do wanted to quote on this since it generated for me a kinda short answer. And that is: one theory is better than other simply because it conceptually stronger (e.g. is has observable and measurable concepts instead of non-measurable like GOD), that it can organizes/explains the emperical data better and -what i find it pesonally important - is a workable, predictive theory. Theory of evolution explains and predicts numerous phenomena and it's still a very powerfull tool to keep generating new predictions whereas creationism has flaws because it needs supernatural ideas, not measurable and not predictable.


On a funny note, if you're saying that we can't tell one theory is better than another, then it means Copernicus' heliocentric model is as good as ptolemeus model.

[IAMRED]

Well, how would you ever observe this other world if it weren't for your mind? I'm using "mind" liberally here to also encompass after you die, you would need to have some sort of sensory abilities to realize that there was this other world. Even if you want to say we are just some immaterial soul that floats around after we die. If we can't EVER "observe" it in some way, then that's essentially saying it doesn't exist OR, it's irrelevant.

What does it mean to observe? If observation entails sensation, that we wouldn't be able to observe an external world apart from sensation would be correct merely by definition. But to observe and to know are not synonymous, I don't think. Even if we can't "observe" the external world, we can know it. The preconditions of the latter are not the same as the preconditions of the former.

[ne12o]

You are confusing "See" with "Observe", they are two different things. You can observe gravity quite easily.

Here's the experiment*:
Pick up an object near a large mass.
Drop said object near a large mass.
Object, based upon the theory of gravity, should fall to the largest and closest mass.

While you didn't SEE gravity, you OBSERVED it. The same thing is true with evolution.

*I didn't mean this to be condescending; it was used to illustrate a point.

you are observing effects that can be explained by gravity, not gravity. There may be another theory that becomes develloped to reconcile these observable phenomenons as well.
If a theory called C explains why A becomes B and you see A beocming B, you did not observe C. You observed A becoming B and C simply offers an explaination of why A became B.

The purpose of a theory is to explain things, not seek the "universal truth". There are plenty of observable phenomenons in the universe that current theories cannot reconcile.

[IAMRED]

Since numerous people are complaining that the thead is getting derailed, I will no more reply on this subject in this thread, but I do wanted to quote on this since it generated for me a kinda short answer. And that is: one theory is better than other simply because it conceptually stronger (e.g. is has observable and measurable concepts instead of non-measurable like GOD), that it can organizes/explains the emperical data better and -what i find it pesonally important - is a workable, predictive theory. Theory of evolution explains and predicts numerous phenomena and it's still a very powerfull tool to keep generating new predictions whereas creationism has flaws because it needs supernatural ideas, not measurable and not predictable.

In other words, you are an empiricist. Ok.

On a funny note, if you're saying that we can't tell one theory is better than another, then it means Copernicus' heliocentric model is as good as ptolemeus model.

That's right.

[JAGERBOY]

What does it mean to observe? If observation entails sensation, that we wouldn't be able to observe an external world apart from sensation would be correct merely by definition. But to observe and to know are not synonymous, I don't think. Even if we can't "observe" the external world, we can know it. The preconditions of the latter are not the same as the preconditions of the former.

Whatever. Ok, so if we "know" it somehow without observing it (lol wut) , then isn't in your mind still, and not independent of it?

[IAMRED]

Whatever. Ok, so if we "know" it somehow without observing it (lol wut) , then isn't in your mind still, and not independent of it?

No. If knowledge of the external world is divinely mediated to my mind, the external world can be independent of my mind.

[JAGERBOY]

No. If knowledge of the external world is divinely mediated to my mind, the external world can be independent of my mind.

Does not compute. How can something be simaltaneously meditated TO YOUR MIND, yet still be independent of your mind? Where is this knowledge being stored?

[JasonDB]

Does not compute. How can something be simaltaneously meditated TO YOUR MIND, yet still be independent of your mind? Where is this knowledge being stored?

You sir have clearly not seen The Matrix.

[JAGERBOY]

You sir have clearly not seen The Matrix.

Ergo...concordantly...vis a vis...

[IAMRED]

Does not compute. How can something be simaltaneously meditated TO YOUR MIND, yet still be independent of your mind? Where is this knowledge being stored?

The propositions pertaining to the external world which are mediated to my mind are true whether or not I believe them. The existence of the external world does not hinge upon my knowing it. I don't understand what you find confusing.

[JAGERBOY]

The propositions pertaining to the external world which are mediated to my mind are true whether or not I believe them. The existence of the external world does not hinge upon my knowing it. I don't understand what you find confusing.

It's not about you currently knowing it, its about whether or not its possible for you to ever know it.

[IAMRED]

It's not about you currently knowing it, its about whether or not its possible for you to ever know it.

I just gave an account as to how I could know it. If you think the account I've given is unsatisfactory, explain why you think that.

[JAGERBOY]

I just gave an account as to how I could know it. If you think the account I've given is unsatisfactory, explain why you think that.

I still don't get what an external world is, but I'm just going to say lets agree to disagree because we are getting no where.

[neekz0r]

In fact, atheist belief is that everything exist due to random chance. Which is to say existence has no meaning. The two are never comparable.

Don't know of any atheists that believe this. Why do you put words in their mouth? That's like saying "Christians believe that the moon is made of god juice."

Is that why it's known as the "FACT" of evolution?

Actually, it's called "observation of evolution", but whatever floats your boat. There are still two things we are talking about; theory of evolution and [observation of] evolution.

A better reason would be you lack the skill and knowledge to explain it better. Permit me to assist you: evolution is the theory that higher life forms evolved from lower life forms. Anything beyond that does not alter it's core meaning.On the contrary, they are very different.

Please don't try to explain evolution or theory of evolution to anyone. You have yet to answer my question about what you've done to learn about these two subjects.

But no, it's not. Go back and read my original post.