[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[Heather Perella]

Hey dmb,

> SA previously replied:
> ...This whole issue was rampant in all the
> textbooks, all universities, yet, 
> nobody actually questioned it enough to discard it. 
> Scientists the world 
> over just believed Darwin had to be right.  This is
> faith in Darwin's 
> argument, maybe?  A belief in what he said, and a
> faith that it will 
> continue to work this way, maybe.  Yet, I'm not
> being strong and strict with 
> the faith aspect, but the belief was present for no
> evidence could be found.


> dmb says:
> What? The reason evolution appears in all the
> textbooks, is taught at all 
> the universities and is believed by scientists the
> world over is because 
> there is an OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE to support
> it.

     You edited out the gradualism part.  I didn't say
evolution is taught with lack of evidence.  I said
gradualism, which is a key component to describe how
evolution worked over time, was put forward by Darwin
and he wrote a whole chapter on the incompleteness of
the fossil record to support his claim for gradualism.
 Gradualism, gradualism, not evolution did I deny as
the highest frequency event.  So, instead of
gradualism as occurring more often, it is PE
apparently.


     [dmb]
> The beauty of science is that it
> allows us to improve 
> ideas that are pretty darn good in the first place.
> And when the data 
> contradicts what we thought we knew, the scientist
> does not cling to his old 
> view.

     So, does our view of food change with what suits
our taste.  Science can change its' taste, as in
string theory which offers much in the HOPE of helping
physics, but not much evidence, very little, many
scientists actually question string theory and say it
is merely a philosophy at the moment.  Yet, many young
students want to learn string theory due to the
promises it offers.  Yes, the promises, that's it. 
String theory persuades students, were even Newtonian
mechanics as more evidence than string theory.  I'm
not saying give up on physics, I'm saying scientist do
cling.  Especially if they've invested a career on
their work, and in the light of anomalies Kuhn states
that scientists hold on as they age.  Science is still
a good tool, but science can't shake human values. 


     [dmb]
> There seems to be a strange and unspoken assumption
> in this sort of 
> objection. Its not just you, SA. It seems that those
> who disagree with me in 
> these areas share a view that any belief that falls
> short of absolute 
> certainty or indisputable proof must be held on the
> basis of "faith".

     I don't think looking into if science is faith
based or not is interesting and valuable as I
meditate.  I never said science is faith based, so,
your not alone.  I just said maybe, due to my lack of
knowledge of what faith is.  Yet, I'm more or less
believing you when you say science has beliefs but not
faith.  Why do I believe you?  Well, faith seems to be
a connotation of teleology, and we bow down to the
Absolute Truth or something.  I'm not for that, so, I
don't put faith in with science.  Notice in the last
post to you from me on this thread, and you'll see I
didn't say science has faith.


     [dmb]
> Not only am I NOT making a case that science is
> indisputable or absolute, I 
> don't even think such things exist. One need not be
> a philosopher of science 
> to understand that theories, hypotheses, evidence,
> data and even science 
> itself are all far less grandiose than that. Do me a
> favor. Look at a 
> dictionary and see what those terms mean. Then look
> up the word "faith".

     Again, notice in the last post to you, I didn't
say evolution has no evidence.  I said gradualism
lacks it, and Darwin was wrong in his supportive
chapter that it is just an incomplete fossil record. 
Yet, he convinced many scientists without any evidence
for his claim.  That's all I said.  So, I guess I'm
saying scientists are human, and science can't totally
avoid human values.  As to faith, as in the last post,
I don't place faith with science, I'm still more
hesitant than you due to my lack of knowledge, but I
don't find me knowing this as something profound for
my meditations.  We all have our way.  Without you
looking into this deeper than I, well, I wouldn't see
your side of this apparent argument, so, thanks.


night,
SA





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com