...so....
To recall the meat of this thread, page 5 would be a good review. I've included some relavent comments above, from a simultaneous thread.
I had written this post below back on the 28th-29th but never did post it (computer problems, etc.).
It still seems like a good wrap-up.
Any Comments????
The whole reason for starting this thread was to point out the futility of arguing for or against a theory, if the BASIC ASSUMPTIONS are not agreed upon.
?By trilobyte's reasoning there are no such thing as "facts". Even the idea the sun will rise tomorrow is not a fact. All is relative.? -ttnz
?But science makes some basic assumptions.? -RicS
Once we agree on the basic assumptions, then we can argue over what some particular evidence reveals or refutes. However, if the basic assumptions aren?t accepted, why even bother to challenge some aspect or claim of a theory?
A theory isn?t reality; and it may bear no relation to true reality at all (or it may be a very close approximation of ?true reality?), but that doesn?t matter. A theory is only a tool that allows for ? [well, we?ve said all this before].
I?ve never understood why a simple tool should threaten someone else?s worldview or philosophy of life. I think it?s because they think the theory is a competing worldview (a competing belief in what true reality is); and they don?t see a theory as just a simple, elegant tool that is pretty much independent of true reality (because of its dependence on basic assumptions).
?The TOE is a useful [tool] theory because its predictions are accurate. Creationism is a useless [tool] hypothesis, because it predicts NOTHING.? -soilguy11:48
?This is how creationism fails as a scientific hypothesis [tool]. It cannot be refuted. On the other hand, evolution [the tool] WOULD be refuted if the genomes of similar creatures were very different.? -soilguy7:08
I?m not voting for or against, but I think creationism could be called a theory, but [as with all theories] ONLY WITHIN THE CONTEXT of its basic assumptions (which makes it a very weak theory for scientific purposes).
Which brings me back to the reason for this thread.
?It's important that you understand what a fact is to a scientist before you assert what is and what is not a fact.? -TFF8:45
By zeroing in on trilobyte?s use of the word fact (or FACT as it was so often put), I was hoping to get to the underlying difference in our basic or founding assumptions (or as trilobyte so often put it, ?speculative assumptions.?
Sure, speculative assumptions generate speculative theories
We can grant that they are speculative; but they work soooo well! (for us, as tools, within their context). My point being, that regardless of one?s worldview, using a tool should not invalidate the worldview, even if the basic assumptions of the tool [theory] conflict with the basic assumptions of the worldview. For instance, I might believe the world was created by God 4000 years ago, but I can still use a tool [ some theory that assumes a geologic timescale] in order to examine and better understand my home planet; or I might have a Newtonian worldview, but still use Einstein to study the cosmos.
I understand that many people form a worldview that is entirely consistent with scientific theories, but that doesn?t mean it?s the only valid worldview. Worldview is so subjective (speculative?) and it doesn?t necessarily have to be very practical. Theories, on the other hand, do need to be objective and practical.
The intense confidence that scientists hold regarding their elegant, internally consistent, well vetted theories, is the same as the intense confidence that deeply religious people feel about their elegant, internally consistent, well vetted religions.
Arguing which is better is a purely subjective measure of utility and scope because things are still viewed from within their own context.
I may be overstating the absoluteness of polarity, but I don?t think I?m making a mountain out of a molehill either. Religion & science are relative opposites of great magnitude because the basic, founding assumptions are so fundamentally different.
But a religion usually is a worldview also. You don?t find people believing in more than one religious system. A theory shouldn?t be a worldview, though it might easily contribute to one. In science it is common to believe in competing theories. I believe in both Newton?s and Einstein?s theories as far as they are useful in different contexts, but I have to make allowances for their differing founding assumptions, their inaccuracies, and their lack of completeness in order to accommodate them in my worldview. The Earth is not flat, but for my everyday experience, the flat theory works well enough (I don?t have to calculate curvature when planning a trip across town). The Earth is not a perfect sphere, but in some contexts, the spherical theory works well enough to see patterns and relative relations of global things. I realize each theory works within its context and does not describe ?true reality,? but I can account for their shortcomings and accommodate them in my worldview. Interestingly, for both of the above examples, none of the four theories would be sufficient for a detailed examination of gravity.
So creationists shouldn?t argue scientific points or facts if they don?t buy into the basic assumptions, but they shouldn?t feel threatened either; because similarly, no one should challenge a religious point, if they don?t buy into the basic religious assumptions. Neither scientists, nor creationists should be self-righteous, but neither should they be discounted; both can be very useful within their particular context.
Now if you want to argue about basic assumptions, that?s fair game and another matter entirely, for which I have no definite opinion; except maybe, each to his own.
I?m not advocating anything here except tolerance, hopefully the result of a better understanding of our conceptual capabilities and our semantic limitations.
For a good way to close, the slightly altered tagline for Rascal Puff #1009
sounds appropriate:
?Modern day Finalized Reality is like a bus schedule - there'll be another one along shortly. Present day [theories] are often perceived and presented as [facts].?
?They keep me happy, and able to make sense of my world without much thought about it.? -RicS1:18
In the end, isn?t that all anyone is trying to do?
Thanks,
~~samwik
