Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

wrote in news:u0r0o25h0d94dedjp6qvpubkb4c82jj7m3@
4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.


Decades of my scientific training, including federal grant review
responsiblities, all teach me that an untestable hypothesis expounded as
"truth"is shoddy science (aka, crap). Therefore, when we teach something
like this, we don't make believe that it is good science. In fact, we try
to make it clear that its not science at all.

Theologans and religious instructors are perfectly free to discuss such
matters all they want, with whoever I want. If its taught as science in a
school system supported by my tax dollars, I'll be at the top of the class
action suit.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:u0r0o25h0d94dedjp6qvpubkb4c82jj7m3@
4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.


Decades of my scientific training, including federal grant review
responsiblities, all teach me that an untestable hypothesis expounded as
"truth"is shoddy science (aka, crap). Therefore, when we teach something
like this, we don't make believe that it is good science.

IOW, that's your "untestable hypothesis expounded as truth"...

In fact, we try to make it clear that its not science at all.

I don't think it is "science" and I don't suggest it be called
"science." But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

Theologans and religious instructors are perfectly free to discuss such
matters all they want, with whoever I want. If its taught as science in a
school system supported by my tax dollars, I'll be at the top of the class
action suit.

Now there's an open-minded attitude AND a great use of the court system!

HTH,
R

wrote in news:ans0o2tjpmnhntqmashl448skfu4b8k63s@
4ax.com:

But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education,

No, YOU believe that this is the way life came about, and your absolute
statement using the phrase "is" speaks well to your faith. Others, in fact
many others, don't believe this to be the case, and have a variety of
hypothesis that all fall under the general class of "evolution". The
hypotheses are close to, if not actually testable and demonstrable, are
very consistent with current concepts of genetics, and none of them call
for the precendent "and then a miracle occurred". For me, that last phrase
really encompasses the difference between science and religion.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 13 Dec 2006 22:33:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:ans0o2tjpmnhntqmashl448skfu4b8k63s@
4ax.com:

But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education,

No, YOU believe that this is the way life came about,

I do? And you arrived at this new untestable hypothesis expounded as
truth how, exactly?

and your absolute statement using the phrase "is" speaks well to your faith.

Ah. No, it doesn't. The use of the _word_ "is" in the _phrase_ "it is"
is completely accurate when describing the idea. The phrase nor its use
speak to the writer's beliefs or faith. It would be the noun that would
do that - i.e., if I had used the word "fact" rather than "idea," one
might reasonably (but still possibly erroneously) guess that I
personally believed it to be a fact.

Others, in fact many others, don't believe this to be the case, and have a variety of
hypothesis that all fall under the general class of "evolution". The
hypotheses are close to, if not actually testable and demonstrable, are
very consistent with current concepts of genetics, and none of them call
for the precendent "and then a miracle occurred". For me, that last phrase
really encompasses the difference between science and religion.

All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why
"evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from
hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above,
acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not
absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement
regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap.

R

wrote in news:ve01o2hql815l8sqp8m05lu2kqc5phc68k@
4ax.com:

All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why
"evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from
hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above,
acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not
absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement
regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Microevolution is quite often tested and easily demonstrated. We can, in
fact, easily synthesize evolution, and this happens all the time. Let's
say I want E.coli to produce a certain protein. I can use genetic
engineering techniques to splice the production of this protein into the
bacteria, and make a colony that expresses this protein. Now, let's say
I don't really understand this protein so good, but I do know that I want
to change it in some testable way, like I would like the protein to work
at a higher temperature than normal. Well, I could take the DNA from the
little guys, and I could replicate it in a fashion guaranteed to
introduce lots of fairly random errors in the copies. I'd whip up a
bunch of these dirty copies, put them in some bacteria, and test the
resulting proteins, if the production managed to survive. Then, I'd
artificially introduce "survival" by making error-filled copies of that
DNA that produced a protein that worked at a higher temp. I'd just keep
doing this till I got what I wanted. This sort of artificial evolution
is going on every day now.

The jump to natural macroevolution is a tad tougher, and this is why it
is still a theory, and not a fact. However, it is a pretty strong
theory. It falls within our current model. We have seen proteins, we
have seen DNA, we have seen many the molecular events that are associated
with sexual and asexual reproduction. We have seen mutation, and we have
seen mutations passed on. All of this, and more, supports the theory of
evolution. From the web page I point you to, "As Stephen J. Gould has
said, a scientific fact is not 'absolute certainty', but simply a theory
that has been 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional consent'".

We have not, however, seen the finger of God come down and instill our
corporeal asses with pneumae. This calls for something that lives well
outside our physical explanation of what is, our model, our Kuhnian
paradigm, if you will. To have intelligent design make sense, first we
have to assume that given a primordial ooze, energy, billions of years of
random events, and that "survival of the fittest" deal that Darwin was
so fond of, evolution on its own (or some of its incarnations, such as
saltatory evolution) is not sufficient to produce that which already is.
Then, we have to incorporate some godhead, which lies entirely out of our
best concepts of the physical world, and invoke a miracle. We'd have to
throw out just about every vestige of Descarte's concept of methological
skepticism, upon which most, if not all, of our knowledge has been based
for centuries.

The last few sentences are what make intelligent design fall squarely
into the religion column. I do not pay science teachers to teach
religion.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 13 Dec 2006 23:40:22 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:ve01o2hql815l8sqp8m05lu2kqc5phc68k@
4ax.com:

All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why
"evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from
hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above,
acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not
absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement
regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html


The jump to natural macroevolution is a tad tougher, and this is why it
is still a theory, and not a fact. However, it is a pretty strong
theory.

Sorta like an "untestable" hypothesis that you've expounded as
truth...

We have not, however, seen the finger of God come down and instill our
corporeal asses with pneumae. This calls for something that lives well
outside our physical explanation of what is, our model, our Kuhnian
paradigm, if you will.

I won't! I won't!

Just because whoever "we" might include besides yourself haven't seen
something is no impetus upon me to accept it as an absolute. Neither
you or I (or anyone else) have seen evolution, either. Yet you choose
to accept it as an absolute insofar as when compared to "intelligent
design" while I choose to simply accept it as the most likely occurrence
based on currently available information.

To have intelligent design make sense, first we
have to assume that given a primordial ooze, energy, billions of years of
random events, and that "survival of the fittest" deal that Darwin was
so fond of, evolution on its own (or some of its incarnations, such as
saltatory evolution) is not sufficient to produce that which already is.

Again, whoever "we" might be could well be so encumbered. I'm not.
While I don't have to consider some form of intelligent design or even
"creation" as a "most likely" occurrence, I choose not to be so
close-minded as to eliminate the merest possibility of it having
occurred. And I'm certainly not going to let the fact that whoever the
hell "we" might be, you, or anyone else hasn't personally witnessed
something influence my thinking on that subject.

Then, we have to incorporate some godhead, which lies entirely out of our
best concepts of the physical world, and invoke a miracle.

No, "we" don't, and since of whom "our" consists is unknown, a statement
regarding their "best concept" of anything is meaningless. IAC,
religion and "God(s)" are not intertwined by definition, only by
individual perception. It is entirely possible to be a religious
atheist or believe in (a) "God" and have no religion. You are
attempting to attack another's theory with your own perception of fact
while simultaneously admitting that your "fact" isn't, in fact, _fact_.

We'd have to

No, "we'd" not have to do jack ****.

throw out just about every vestige of Descarte's concept of methological
skepticism, upon which most, if not all, of our knowledge has been based
for centuries.

Yet again, no, "we" wouldn't, but if evidence surfaces that indicates it
needs to be thrown out, AFAIAC, out it goes. But I think you may wish
to familiarize yourself more completely with Descartes.

The last few sentences are what make intelligent design fall squarely
into the religion column. I do not pay science teachers to teach
religion.

But you will pay them to teach Descartes, at least his work that you
personally canonize...interesting...again, you may wish to become more
familiar with his writings.

HTH,
R

wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 23:40:22 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:ve01o2hql815l8sqp8m05lu2kqc5phc68k@
4ax.com:

All fair enough. And most of the former part of the above is why
"evolution" cannot be "taught," only "taught about" without moving from
hypothesizing to hypostatizing. And how do you reconcile the above,
acknowledging the variety and the fact that the hypotheses are not
absolutely "testable and demonstrable," with your pervious statement
regarding "untestable hypothesis" being crap.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html


The jump to natural macroevolution is a tad tougher, and this is why it
is still a theory, and not a fact. However, it is a pretty strong
theory.

Sorta like an "untestable" hypothesis that you've expounded as
truth...

We have not, however, seen the finger of God come down and instill our
corporeal asses with pneumae. This calls for something that lives well
outside our physical explanation of what is, our model, our Kuhnian
paradigm, if you will.

I won't! I won't!

Just because whoever "we" might include besides yourself haven't seen
something is no impetus upon me to accept it as an absolute. Neither
you or I (or anyone else) have seen evolution, either. Yet you choose
to accept it as an absolute insofar as when compared to "intelligent
design" while I choose to simply accept it as the most likely occurrence
based on currently available information.

To have intelligent design make sense, first we
have to assume that given a primordial ooze, energy, billions of years of
random events, and that "survival of the fittest" deal that Darwin was
so fond of, evolution on its own (or some of its incarnations, such as
saltatory evolution) is not sufficient to produce that which already is.

Again, whoever "we" might be could well be so encumbered. I'm not.
While I don't have to consider some form of intelligent design or even
"creation" as a "most likely" occurrence, I choose not to be so
close-minded as to eliminate the merest possibility of it having
occurred. And I'm certainly not going to let the fact that whoever the
hell "we" might be, you, or anyone else hasn't personally witnessed
something influence my thinking on that subject.

Then, we have to incorporate some godhead, which lies entirely out of our
best concepts of the physical world, and invoke a miracle.

No, "we" don't, and since of whom "our" consists is unknown, a statement
regarding their "best concept" of anything is meaningless. IAC,
religion and "God(s)" are not intertwined by definition, only by
individual perception. It is entirely possible to be a religious
atheist or believe in (a) "God" and have no religion. You are
attempting to attack another's theory with your own perception of fact
while simultaneously admitting that your "fact" isn't, in fact, _fact_.

We'd have to

No, "we'd" not have to do jack ****.

throw out just about every vestige of Descarte's concept of methological
skepticism, upon which most, if not all, of our knowledge has been based
for centuries.

Yet again, no, "we" wouldn't, but if evidence surfaces that indicates it
needs to be thrown out, AFAIAC, out it goes. But I think you may wish
to familiarize yourself more completely with Descartes.

The last few sentences are what make intelligent design fall squarely
into the religion column. I do not pay science teachers to teach
religion.

But you will pay them to teach Descartes, at least his work that you
personally canonize...interesting...again, you may wish to become more
familiar with his writings.

Good God, you are stupid.

Wolfgang

Scott Seidman wrote:
... All of this, and more, supports the theory of
evolution.

No, no, no, no, NO! There is no "the theory of evolution"! There are
multifarious theories concerning the mechanisms that drive biological
evolution. That such evolution occurs is a demonstrated,
incontovertible, and unassailable FACT! A billion years ago there were
no dinosaurs. A hundred million years ago there WERE dinosaurs. Today
there are no dinosaurs. A hundred million years ago there were no
human beings. Today there ARE human beings. Species have come and
gone. They continue to do so. That is a fact. That's it......it
really IS that simple.

From the web page I point you to, "As Stephen J. Gould has
said, a scientific fact is not 'absolute certainty', but simply a theory
that has been 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional consent'"....

Gould was wrong. Dead wrong. Unequivocally wrong. Scientific facts
ARE absolutely certain....just like any other facts. What is NOT
certain.....all too often.....is whether or not the assertion in
question is indeed a fact. That determination is what science is
about......and it does a damned fine job of it.

Meanwhile, advocates of "creationsim" and "intelligent design" are in
no material way any different than "flat earthers" and
"phlogistonists." They deserve a great deal more contempt and derision
than my meager lexical skills allow me to bestow on them. Treating
them like adults that one can have a meanigful discussion with is a
grave disservice not only to humanity, but to every other living thing
on the planet as well.

You should stop doing that.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in
ups.com:

From the web page I point you to, "As Stephen J. Gould has
said, a scientific fact is not 'absolute certainty', but simply a
theory that has been 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional consent'"....

Gould was wrong. Dead wrong. Unequivocally wrong. Scientific facts
ARE absolutely certain....just like any other facts. What is NOT
certain.....all too often.....is whether or not the assertion in
question is indeed a fact. That determination is what science is
about......and it does a damned fine job of it.



I might be going against the grain, but scientific facts are just facts
so long as they don't cause predictions that are so wrong that they tear
down the Kuhnian paradigm. We don't "know" a thing about reality with
100% certainty, we just have a pretty good model of what's going on. We
can only test hypothesis within that model.

Aristotle thought he was right using his physical model with the five
elements air, fire, earth, water, and aether. Indeed, using the tools
available to him at the time, there weren't any huge inconsistencies in
his model that caused him to throw the whole deal out.

In some ways, to claim scientific certainty is an admission that there
are no earth-shaking technologies in our future that will help us shed
real light on the mysteries of the universe, and I find that more
depressing then comforting--I'd rather give up on scientific certainty
then abandon hope on a major natural philosophical surprise. Those
physicists trying to develope a unification theory shouldn't pack it in
just yet!

Of course, none of the above is in any way a suggestion that we should
begin teaching the paradigms of yesterday in pre-college curricula as if
they were cutting edge science, making believe they solve mysteries
which current science tells us are not mysteries.

The other caveat worth discussing in this philosophical house of cards
I'm living in is that it gives bad scientists the opportunity to claim
that the wrong conclusions they reach are just the next logical Kuhnian
Revolution-- and that we must abandon our current "good" model and adopt
their replacement, even though nobody else sees the inconsistencies in
the good model. I think there's alot of this going on in the
Intelligent Design debate (though I have trouble acknowledging it as a
debate).

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote in message
...

R

You know Rah, you really do yourself a disservice, when you try to compete
intellectually with a true intellectual. I wouldn't confront Scott anymore,
if I were you. It really makes you look even more the fool than usual.
Seriously!

Op