Is impartial objectivity even possible?

[Roy]

@MarkD also mentioned scripture.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

@MarkD also mentioned scripture

Mentioned , but only in relation to Scientific perspectives. The subject was science .That is basic English comprehension.

Richard

[Kendel]

@jpm

Interesting that what it seems we are calling impartial is related to humility: the ability to put self aside and be open to listening to others. And it difficult enough that we are told over and over in the Bible to cultivate it in our lives.

I think humility is important in learning to think well. Recognizing that a great deal of what we understand as “universal truths” are not universal truths - true at all times everywhere for everyone - can feel humiliating. Learning to deal with that well requires humility.
Learning to recognize and deal with our partiality does require humility.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Kendel

I think humility is important in learning to think well.

The problem with humility is that the moment you think you have attained it, you have lost it.
It is a fine goal, as long as you never think you have reached it.

Richard

[ProDeo (Ed)]

@RichardG

@Kendel

I think humility is important in learning to think well.

The problem with humility is that the moment you think you have attained it, you have lost it.
It is a fine goal, as long as you never think you have reached it.

Richard

True that.

Remembering the times you were wrong is helpful, you could be wrong again.

[Kendel]

“Moses was the most humble man…” syndrome?

Of course.

Humility is something other people see in practice. The really humble person is too busy trying to really hear what the other person is meaning to communicate.

[ProDeo (Ed)]

And less judgemental.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Kendel

Humility is something other people see in practice. The really humble person is too busy trying to really hear what the other person is meaning to communicate.

Maybe humility is something kinda like happiness. It’s only seen with your peripheral vision. The moment you try to look directly at it (pin it down, discuss it, or study it) … it’s gone!

[T_aquaticus]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

This reminds me of the example somebody here raised (I think it may have been @jpm or @T_aquaticus ) about the whodunnit mystery in which the butler was seen to have acquired the gun and to have entered the room where victim was murdered, but the defense in court insists that since nobody witnessed the butler getting from the kitchen to the library, there is too much unknown. Then when camera footage is brought to light that captures images of the butler sneaking past a doorway in between at the time in question, weapon in hand, the defense then insists that now there are now two gaps of ignorance instead of just one!

The analogy was made by Dawkins.

Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of “gaps”: "Show me your ‘intermediates!’ " They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these “gaps” are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful “intermediates.” We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively.

Let’s use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It’s pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler’s defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler’s pantry. “There’s a gap in the video record! We don’t know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client.”

In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. “We don’t know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before.”
Excerpt: Richard Dawkins's New Book on Evolution - Newsweek

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

I’d say no, it’s not possible to perceive the world independent of all the embodied experiences that have shaped the way you make sense of what you perceive. All of our knowledge is filtered through our inherenlty limited and biased cognitive capacities. But I think we can still know things, be certain of things, and we can still arrive at accurate perceptions of reality.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

Te predictions are based on the theory and what it is tryng to prove. (Nested hierachy etc) but there is no (obious) consideration as to whether the same results might indicate another answer. I keep hearing “The reuslt are what we epect!” But you have already decided what the conclusion will be.

Would this mean you reject Round Earthism because the conclusion was already decided on before we looked at the evidence?

Isn’t the evidence exactly what we would expect to see if the Earth was round? Or is all of the evidence just an illusion because we won’t consider Flat Earthism or any other explanation?

Perhaps you could explain how you would approach Flat Earthism given the objections you have raised in this thread.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Would this mean you reject Round Earthism

Why do you keep comparing to things that are not analogous? Just because it is science? Been there, done that, don’t want the T-shirt.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

Why do you keep comparing to things that are not analogous?

How would you approach a Flat Earther? How would you try to convince them that the Earth is really round?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

How would you approach a Flat Earther?

I would not bother.

Until and unless you can understand the principles of Evolution in relation to the principles of other science you will never understand what i am getting at. Throwing up Flat earth or weather patterns, or geology, or gravity will never help. The principles are not related. Nor are the types of data, nor the reality of the results.
Just because there are Christians who dispute X, Y or Z does not mean that the principles involved are the same a those in Evolution.
Evolution is about events in the past. Events that cannot be witnessed. The earth is round It still is. Any changes that caused the creation of specific types of animals , some of which no longer exist, cannot ever be witnessed, or proved. No matter what corroborative evidence you have or perceived connections, you still cannot show me an animal developing legs or wings or a femur that is just a round stick .All you can show me is fossils of the complete animals…

Show me a Marsupial giving birth to a placental mammal. Show me a mud skipper giving birth toan amphibian. Show me ho a beak is preferable to a jawbone without knowing that it needs to shrink beyond the viability of the jawbone.

And I will show you births of conjoined twins, hole in the heart children, deformed and incomplete foetuses that would die if it wasn’t for human medicine. Where is the next evolved human? Where is Evolution in the last Millenia? Did it stop with humanity?
Show me a chimp giving birth to a homolid.

I might just believe it if you could show me any of these transformations here and now.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

I would not bother.

If you did bother, what would you show a Flat Earther to try and convince them they are wrong?

@RichardG

Evolution is about events in the past. Events that cannot be witnessed. The earth is round It still is. Any changes that caused the creation of specific types of animals , some of which no longer exist, cannot ever be witnessed, or proved. No matter what corroborative evidence you have or perceived connections, you still cannot show me an animal developing legs or wings or a femur that is just a round stick .All you can show me is fossils of the complete animals…

The entire purpose of science is to understand things we can’t directly witness. Do you think the very enterprise of doing science should be thrown out just because we can’t directly witness what theories describe?

We can use Rutherford’s famous experiment as an example:

When he fired positively charged nuclei at gold foil he observed that some of them were deflected. His conclusion was that the deflection was due to positively charged gold nuclei in those atoms. Did he actually witness these collisions? No. Does this mean he wasn’t doing science because he didn’t observe his conclusions?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

The entire purpose of science is to understand things we can’t directly witness

Still not the same. You can duplicate the experiment again and again and utilise the data. You cannot demonstrate a mother giving birth to a viable large deviation that continues.(I am talking about the changes needed to cross species and type not a bigger beak or a longer limb)

Why can’t you understand the limitations of what you can demonstrate?

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

You can duplicate the experiment again and again and utilise the data.

I’m just trying to get a baseline for what you will accept. You seem to be saying that it is possible to have impartial objectivity when it comes to repeatable experiments. Is that correct? I would certainly agree with this sentiment. For example, we wouldn’t expect someone who doesn’t believe in Atom Theory to get different results in Rutherford’s experiment. The results should be the same for everyone in spite of what they believe about atoms.

@RichardG

You cannot demonstrate a mother giving birth to a viable large deviation that continues.(I am talking about the changes needed to cross species and type not a bigger beak or a longer limb)

Why do you think species differ from each other? Us biologists think species look different because the DNA sequence of their genomes is different. Do you think we are on the wrong track?

@RichardG

Why can’t you understand the limitations of what you can demonstrate?

Thus far, the only limitation you can point to is what you are willing to accept as true.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

You’re working harder at this than I am willing to. Whenever you offer someone an offramp for a faulty argument and they act as though you’ve slung a personal attack. Likely it is time to leave him to his own devices.

And not being willing to accept all of another person’s premises is no sign of reading incomprehension.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Thus far, the only limitation you can point to is what you are willing to accept as true.

You have more faith than I do in the abilities of the Evolutionary process… In terms of the OP neither of us are starting from neutrality or impartiality.

It is all about the scope or amount of change possible in one go, and this i]the ongoing argument. Could a primal fish give birth toan amphibian (more than once) to create a new genome and creature type. I say no. You say “given enough time , yes”
Remembering that one of a new type of creature is useless unless it can still breed with the group it came from, and then it has to have dominant genes that will overide the usual offspring characteristics.

Take as a whole the probabilities involved are astronomic, unless there is some sort of guidance or parameters to funnel the direction of development. ToE does not have that sort of directional control.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

Could a primal fish give birth toan amphibian (more than once) to create a new genome and creature type. I say no.

Fish and amphibians are the same creature type, a vertebrate.

Also, nowhere in the theory of evolution does it describe a fish producing a frog.

Languages are a good analogy. Most people are not able to read or understand Old English, and yet there was a time period of thousands of years where Old English slowly became modern English, and each generation was able to understand one another as well as the generation before and after it. Small changes add up over time. Each and every human is born with 50 or so mutations, and they accumulate over time.

@RichardG

Take as a whole the probabilities involved are astronomic, unless there is some sort of guidance or parameters to funnel the direction of development.

That funnel is natural selection.

Also, I don’t see any issues with probability. There are enough humans alive right now so that every possible non-lethal point mutation exists in at least one person. There was enough time in human evolution for every mutation to occur 50 to 100 times over. I don’t see how your claims about probabilities hold up.