T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
102
How are you any different? When you get sick, do you go to the doctor to get science based treatments, or do you follow non-scientific views like crystal power or shamans? Would modern medicine be better if it included non-scientific views like crystal power or demonology?
The major issue here is reality. It exists. The data from this reality exists. What scientists are trying to do is figure out why reality is the way it is. As it applies to biology, scientists want to know why we see things like a nested hierarchy, transitional fossils, different divergence rates of exons and introns, an excess of transitions between genomes, etc. The theory of evolution explains why we see this data. It explains why reality is the way it is. What you are offering doesn’t explain this reality in a reasoned or testable manner.
If you want to convince scientists to take your ideas seriously then you need to tackle the data and show how your explanations do a better job of explaining the data than the theory they currently have.
It does exist, but not within the scientific perspective.
Now read what else you wrote
So you have just contradicted yourself/
You admit that you only want scientific arguments, therefore you do not want, or refuse to see or accept any argument that is not scientific.
Becuae you refuse to acet that there can bearguments that do not fit your scientific view.
Precisely
I have no idea but your choice of language and certain responses indicate some sort of aggressive emotion.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
109
How do you determine if a non-scientific argument is correct? Do you think everyone should automatically accept any argument you make without questions or criticism?
Coherent, warranted, justified, true existence is a matter of scientific determination. Nothing less. Our desires are irrelevant.
I can’t parse, follow, any of what follows. It’s a rabbit warren of taking single bifurcations (at least) of interpretation. They would all have to be factorially explicated.
I have a mind as divers, rich, complex. emergent, rhetorical, dialectical, paradoxical, enslaved to disordered passions, deluded, compartmentalized, as any man’s, every man’s.. And it’s ALWAYS a man’s here. Always: With a testosterone shrivelled corpus collosum. I love stories, art, music, poetry, nature, discourse.
Art appreciation, literary criticism and their philosophy and a philosophical approach generally, initially are my tools, beyond non-verbal emotional reaction, for investigating such reactions, as you have to beholding the art, the artefact, of science. With psychology quickly joining in. But that’s scientific.
Your opinion is in the gut. You find the ultimate meaninglessness of evanescent life, racing downhill to non-existence, to switch-off as on an old CRT, death, too ghastly to contemplate. Who doesn’t!? Your angst is with that reality, which science and reason from it only sign.
I fully grant, in all theoretical good will, that you have a far greater understanding of science including evolution, than anyone here. Please assume it, always. You just don’t like it. You’re terrified of its implications. Naturally. So you reject that, in, with faith. Others here, especially all the professional, qualified life scientists without exception, are less sensitive to what science and reason point at. They have no problem with their separate magisteria. But you do, so science has to go. I’m the opposite. Faith had to leave. She left me. I miss her so. You still have her. Rejoice!
One can certainly literarily critique how creation myths model eschatology myths. Do you want to do that? What about The Worm Ouroboros?
I have no criticism of you whatsoever Richard, just as I have no judgementalism of you. There is no point. Critique, yes.
One of my Hebrew professors made that joke. He was a bit of an irreverent sort; he said if we can’t make jokes with the scriptures, our attitude is wrong.
That’s not the issue – the issue is that you want non-scientific material to change how science works. That’s no different than telling a mechanic to use baking oils on a car’s pistons.
No one has any difficulty with there being “more than the scientific view” – it;s just that no one wants to mix non-science with science and call it anything but ludicrous. Science is what it is, limitations and all, and one of those limitations is that it is incapable of not being science.
So does the mechanic’s view. And the baker’s. And the carpenter’s. And the geologist’s. And the meteorologist’s. And the plumber’s. And . . . . it is the nature of any field of knowledge to ignore what is not relevant, even to include poetry and dance.
No one does – it’s just that no one sees any point in doing science with anything other than the tools of science.
Nor in one that can be rationally communicated, apparently.
I am sorry but science is not an island. It cannot demand to be isolated from other cognition or understanding.
You ae not getting the context. Once the baker or mechanic has finished their work they are open to scrutiny from the rest of the world. It doesn’t matter if the recipe is brilliant, if it tastes naff it tastes naff.
Science must be open to criticism outisde its high walls.
Dismissal or “because Richard says so” are not valid responses.
So get off this exclusion zones of yours. You cannot hide forever.
I communicate perfectly well, thank you. But you have to take off your blinkers and scientific glasses and read what is there instead of just rejecting it out of hand because it is not in a manner that you like or accept.
You can’t be told. It can’t be explained to you. You ‘know’ that you are communicating perfectly clearly to everyone, but no one makes any sense of what you’re saying.
