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

[TBU720]

Agreement wouldn't mean it is objective. It would mean our subjective opinions match.

Sounds fine to me.

His observation statement is predicated on his observation. For starters, his observation is predicated on the reliability of his senses. How can one demonstrate one's senses are reliable? This was my point: even observations are theory-laden.

Fine, everything you say sounds okay.

But I really wish people wouldn't discuss this crap. It might not be objective by the purest definition, but it is as objective as we can get. I would still call my example objective, because it is as objective as possible. It might be subject to our interpretation of our senses, but it is not like we are interpreting the existence of the world with a political bias or something.

To me, there is just an enormous difference between making a statement that is influenced by our individual senses and a statement that is influenced by political or emotional bias

Compare this to something like "Look at all those stars, everything is so beautiful, the evidence for God is all around us!" I don't want to call observations "objective" because it opens the door for people thinking any subjective statement is equally respectable.

[IAMRED]

Fine, everything you say sounds okay.

But I really wish people wouldn't discuss this crap. It might not be objective by the purest definition, but it is as objective as we can get. I would still call my example objective, because it is as objective as possible. It might be subject to our interpretation of our senses, but it is not like we are interpreting the existence of the world with a political bias or something.

To me, there is just an enormous difference between making a statement that is influenced by our individual senses and a statement that is influenced by political or emotional bias.

Compare this to something like "Look at all those stars, everything is so beautiful, the evidence for God is all around us!" I don't want to call observations "objective" because it opens the door for people thinking any subjective statement is equally respectable.

Once you accept the idea an observation [statement] is subjective, on what basis can you argue that any proposition believed on empirical grounds is relatively sounder than another?

[TBU720]

Once you accept the idea an observation [statement] is subjective, on what basis can you argue that any proposition believed on empirical grounds is relatively sounder than another?

Because you can explain the reasons for where one proposition comes from. I believe that the Earth exists because I see it. I believe that the things I see exist because my sight and senses are the only things I have that could tell me what exists.

Compare this to another belief, maybe like "I believe that my hand is a gun" Why? Just because I choose to believe it. If I can make no further connections to something that would be verifyable by another person, then nobody has any reason to believe me.

Are you seriously suggesting that scientific observations and analysis do not lead us to information that can be determined to be more reliable than other ways of guessing about reality?

One of the fundamental assumptions of our society is that we all exist in one reality that should be verifyable by other people. If you think that peoples conceptions of reality should be equally valued then you should live in a different society. People get locked up for delusional beliefs about reality.

[Sublime82]

The whole philosophical discussion going on in this thread is really a moot point, considering that one of the fundamentals of science is that no fact can be 100% proven. This does not mean that we stop referring to it as a fact.

[riptor]

I saw this good quote somewhere.

Believing in "micro" evolution but not "macro" evolution is like believing that plates move, but that continents have never gone anywhere.

Young earth creationists also tend to reject plate tectonics too.

[IAMRED]

Because you can explain the reasons for where one proposition comes from. I believe that the Earth exists because I see it. I believe that the things I see exist because my sight and senses are the only things I have that could tell me what exists.

Compare this to another belief, maybe like "I believe that my hand is a gun" Why? Just because I choose to believe it. If I can make no further connections to something that would be verifyable by another person, then nobody has any reason to believe me.

I could argue with a so-called color blind person all day. Neither of us can justify our observation statements.

I also don't think a person can choose their beliefs. One may, however, choose to lie about what one's beliefs are.

Are you seriously suggesting that scientific observations and analysis do not lead us to information that can be determined to be more reliable than other ways of guessing about reality?

I think the purpose of science is pragmatic, not epistemological.

One of the fundamental assumptions of our society is that we all exist in one reality that should be verifyable by other people. If you think that peoples conceptions of reality should be equally valued then you should live in a different society. People get locked up for delusional beliefs about reality.

Ironically, you can't justify the idea the populace aren't really the delusional ones.

That said, I don't think all conceptions of reality are equal. I think all conceptions of reality on empirical grounds are equally defensible.

[IAMRED]

The whole philosophical discussion going on in this thread is really a moot point, considering that one of the fundamentals of science is that no fact can be 100% proven. This does not mean that we stop referring to it as a fact.

What is a fact, then?

[Sublime82]

What is a fact, then?

I understand what you are saying throughout this thread, and I agree. However we do not let it stop us from classifying certain observations as facts. It is simply a matter of convenience, the same reason we classify anything.

[TBU720]

That said, I don't think all conceptions of reality are equal. I think all conceptions of reality on empirical grounds are equally defensible.

Then on what grounds are they unequal?

[IAMRED]

I understand what you are saying throughout this thread, and I agree. However we do not let it stop us from classifying certain observations as facts. It is simply a matter of convenience, the same reason we classify anything.

Ok, but I still don't know what you mean by "fact." I'm interested.

[IAMRED]

Then on what grounds are they unequal?

On rational, epistemological grounds.

[TBU720]

On rational, epistemological grounds.

Who are you to decide what is rational? I thought all observations are inherently subjective.

[IAMRED]

Who are you to decide what is rational?

I'm IAMRED.

I thought all observations are inherently subjective.

I have been consistent in referring to subjective observations as those which are empirical, grounded on sensation.

[Queequeg]

I'm IAMRED.

What you doing in this thread? for a moment I thought its was a rationalist telling an bunch of empiricists how to keep their house in order.

[TBU720]

I'm IAMRED.



I have been consistent in referring to subjective observations as those which are empirical, grounded on sensation.

What the HELL do we know that isn't grounded on sensation?

[IAMRED]

What you doing in this thread? for a moment I thought its was a rationalist telling an bunch of empiricists how to keep their house in order.

What do you mean?

[IAMRED]

What the HELL do we know that isn't grounded on sensation?

Here's an obvious one: that we know at all.

[TBU720]

Here's an obvious one: that we know at all.

How do you know that anyone else actually knows anything?

Perhaps you have misread and misheard information from people who have also misunderstood information.

[IAMRED]

How do you know that anyone else actually knows anything?

Perhaps you have misread and misheard information from people who have also misunderstood information.

"I don't know anything" would be a self-defeating assertion. The problem is not "that" we know but "how" we know.

But your point about the contingency of discursive knowledge is a good one. It is why I am a theist, actually.

[Sublime82]

Ok, but I still don't know what you mean by "fact." I'm interested.

Any common definition is fine.

[MetalManuel]

no absolute knowledge!
brb can't do anything


lol

[TBU720]

"I don't know anything" would be a self-defeating assertion. The problem is not "that" we know but "how" we know.

But your point about the contingency of discursive knowledge is a good one. It is why I am a theist, actually.

What?

Why are you a theist? And how does it have anything to do with what we have been talking about?

[IAMRED]

Any common definition is fine.

Most of the definitions I've read entail the concept of proof.

[IAMRED]

What?

Why are you a theist? And how does it have anything to do with what we have been talking about?

Like I said, the issue is not whether or not we know anything but how we know what we know. If you deny you know anything, how do you know it? The assertion is self-defeating.

As for why I'm a theist, now that I think about it, this may be a different topic for a different day. It would take a while to explain what I meant. I could link you to a post on the subject I've written if you're really that interested.

[TBU720]

Like I said, the issue is not whether or not we know anything but how we know what we know. If you deny you know anything, how do you know it? The assertion is self-defeating.

As for why I'm a theist, now that I think about it, this may be a different topic for a different day. It would take a while to explain what I meant. I could link you to a post on the subject I've written if you're really that interested.

I'm not interested, as I'm fairly certain it will be completely asinine.

This entire discussion is completely asinine. You start with saying there is no degree of objectivity in declaring that the Earth exists. Then your logic for this is that nothing we see is knowable. However, you go on to agree that not all conceptions of reality are equally respectable.

When I ask why? You explain some bullsh*t about knowing. I then put your own logic back on yourself and you say "You make a good point"

I didn't make any point. You made the point. My stance is that there is objectivity. I think your logic about objectivity is retarded, and I proved it to you by applying your own logic to your belief that not everybody's idea of reality is equal.

Your internal logic is inconsistent and therefore I highly doubt you have any groundbreaking thoughts on the existence of a god. My prediction is that it is some pointless argument about human consciousness that does nothing to connect theoretical logic with real-life phenomenon. Why? Because you seem to think that the process of scientific observation is no less subjective than fiction-writing or story-telling.

[IAMRED]

This entire discussion is completely asinine. You start with saying there is no degree of objectivity in declaring that the Earth exists.

You agreed we can't be empirically objective but insist on calling observations objective. Who's being asinine again?

Then your logic for this is that nothing we see is knowable. However, you go on to agree that not all conceptions of reality are equally respectable.

Right. I'm not a physicalist. Are you?

When I ask why? You explain some bullsh*t about knowing.

Are you retarded? What part of "'I don't know anything' is a self-defeating assertion" don't you understand?

I then put your own logic back on yourself and you say "You make a good point"

I didn't make any point. You made the point.

I guess I gave you too much credit. My fault.

My stance is that there is objectivity. I think your logic about objectivity is retarded, and I proved it to you by applying your own logic to your belief that not everybody's idea of reality is equal.

Lol. Earlier it you said, and I quote, "everything you say sounds okay." Now you're back saying we can be objective. Flip-flop much?

Your internal logic is inconsistent and therefore I highly doubt you have any groundbreaking thoughts on the existence of a god. My prediction is that it is some pointless argument about human consciousness that does nothing to connect theoretical logic with real-life phenomenon. Why? Because you seem to think that the process of scientific observation is no less subjective than fiction-writing or story-telling.

What I've gathered from this is that you are mad because you could not explain how one can justify an empirically subjective observation [statement] to another whose subjective observation [statement] differs.

[BaguetteFO]

On the contrary, evolution occurs over thousands of years; and there are no record tape going back 1 million or even 50,000 years. So unless you know someone who is very, very old, a theory is the best we will ever have.

We can observe with our naked eye evolution in bacteria. They have a much faster generation shizzle the nizzle

[BaguetteFO]

Your original claim is that observations are not objective. Not that observations can never be proven to be completely true.

You can never know for certain that the objects you see are actually reality. But if you believe that the computer in front of you is real, does that mean that your belief is not objective?

I am using a computer to type words. Is this an objective observation?

Read up on Hanson(wikipedia) and the idea of 'theory laden of observations'. It's a thing in the philosophy of science. I'm not convinced of it, but they hold a strong position about this.

Actually, this will be a good read.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sc...y-observation/


As for the person who brought up this theory laden idea: you seem to me a irrationalist and absolutist. It's not because our observations are not objective, that we don't know everything for sure because they're theory/schematic laden, etc that those kind of statements makes our science somewhat not progressive. There is actually a relative progressiveness because we can only handle with the best theories we have and our best (and only!) theory for evolution is the theory of evolution. We observe all phenomena in the language of evolution, but offcourse, maybe 100 years later, we'll be needing another theory and ask different questions. We buried the creationism idea because it sucks balls and this is also a general consensus in the academia of philosophy of science. My fallibilist teacher was notorious for his strong atheism
It has anything to do by seeing knowledge not as absolute, but as a relative progressing thing.


just like someone else said
brb knowledge is abolsute
cant't do anything lol

Doesnt make any sense.

We CAN say some theories are better than others. Saying that facts are theory laden is somewhat whole different than that!

[KRANE]

This douchebag is the #1 reason why we should not bother trying to educate creationists: They don't listen. You just explained that a scientific "theory" does not imply any conjecture, but what does Mr. Krane immediately turn around and say?

What do we have here? A neophyte that would be King? My point was--to put it in even simpler terms--both are based on faith.

We can observe with our naked eye evolution in bacteria. They have a much faster generation shizzle the nizzle

You mean with our naked eye through a microscope? As for the bacteria, what exactly did it "evolve" in to?

[neekz0r]

What do we have here? A neophyte that would be King? My point was--to put it in even simpler terms--both are based on faith.You mean with our naked eye through a microscope? As for the bacteria, what exactly did it "evolve" in to?

If by faith, you mean that you have faith when you jump up, you'll be pulled back down to earth, yes.

Watching and proving evolution is easy to do. You can do it with just about anything, to be honest. Mice, rats, plants, whatever.

Take something, like 10 mice. Select a quality that they have you like. Such as black fur. Only breed the ones that have black fur. After a few generations of mice, you'll start noticing that black fur becomes more and more common. That is evolution.

If you go on long enough (IE: a whole life time) and with more than 10 mice, say ... 500, and only selectively breed the ones with black hair, eventually you'll have a new species of mice. If your sons sons continue to do this, you may eventually have an entirely new genus or family.

Dogs are a great example of a different species then the wolf. It's taken some 15,000 years, but you are starting to see key differences in both mentality and physical structure. Dogs are a different species, and in another 10,000 or so years they'll likely be a different genus.