jh Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:2 problems w/ this. First is your misunderstanding of the word "faith".

Second is the circular reasoning that you employ: that you can validate your senses by data received by your senses.

Curiously, you allude to that here:

Quote:Even if we aren't real, even if you're just a brain in a vat & I'm just electrical signals being shot into your brain, the scientific method still works. It would still be the best method for you to find out about the artificial environment that you are "living" in.

Why? Frankly, in the situation you describe your senses provide no help in describing the real world you live in.

How do you define the word faith, then? Instead of just telling people they are misunderstanding the word, it would be more beneficial if you would explain what you mean by it.

I am more than happy to conceed that sensory input might not reflect the "real" world. I'm afraid that certainty is not a luxury we are affoarded. There's always a possibility, however remote, that this could all just be one big joke (it would help explain some things). It's not faith that allows me not to worry about this possibility, it's indifference.

Are you really trying to argue that we could realistically be brains in vats? Because other than taking it to that level, arguments about using sense data to validate our senses is rather weak. First, sense data is the only way to get information about the world around us. Really any information at all - even the rules of logic are taught through sensory experience. Additionally, there is an a priori argument in their favor - if they didn't reasonably represent the world we lived in we would be unable to long exist. Finally, there are five different senses, all of which can be used to corroborate the others. There is no more reason to group the five together than there is to view them independently (particularly given that they developed separately & are governed by different areas of the brain).

But if you are willing to argue that there is a real possibility that we are indeed just brains in a vat so therefore are senses are unreliable, I say so what? If I'm just a brain in a vat "living" in an imaginary world, what do I care? What matters to me is the world I'm "living" in, not the one that my physical manifestation happens to exist in. I'd certainly rather be able to move around my imaginary world, to laugh & love, than simply be a blob of gray goo in a jar on the desk of a post-doc student at some intergallactic university, even if it isn't real. And even if the post-doc is the one who sets the parameters of my existance, the scientific method is still the best way for me to find out what those parameters are.

In fact, in the brain in a vat example, in many ways it is more true to say that the created world is the real one, at least for the person in question. In this case "I" don't exist in the real world because "I" am not just a brain in the vat.

I'm not really interested in re-hashing the philosophy behind The Matrix. I loved the movie, but don't have time.

If you want to start from the basics, feel free to read (or re-read) des Cartes.

But please note, you're the one who brought in the complicated scenarios. All I'm saying is that scientists make assumptions, and it's ok. By your use of the word, it's "faith". I don't have a problem with it, except when you (or others) say they don't base things on "faith". That's simply untrue.

My issue w/ the definition of the word "faith" is that meaning doesn't fit exactly w/ what the Bible means w/ the word, and so it adds more confusion by using one word w/ different definitions.
Christians have brought this on themselves b/c they misuse the word all the time too.
Faith, as written in the Bible, is acting obediently to God's word, even when circumstances make it appear that it's a bad choice. Abraham had faith when he left comfort for an unknown land. Gideon had faith. Jeremiah had faith. Even though all of those folks had doubts. Try using that understanding; for me, I've found the Bible to make much more sense.
And the whole "blind faith" thing is almost an oxymoron, b/c God rarely (if ever) asked people to do things w/o offering some evidence that He would fulfill a promise.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I do think that "biblical literalists" and "creationists" are ignorant of science...

Maybe I fit your definition of "biblical literalist" or "creationist" or maybe I don't. But, I confess I take offense at being told I'm ignorant of science, especially when often enough, I'm the only scientist in the room.

Maybe some of you guys are scientists too. But, I've got the degrees, the publications, and (for you libertarians) I've been gainfully employed as a scientist for years. Usually I'm commended for my rigor and care in design of experiments and interpretation.

And often enough my co-workers' (many who are good scientists and from several venues) jaws drop open when they hear I don't accept modern evolutionary theory. But, when pushed they find that I'm more versed in the subject than they.

First off, welcome back Dr. Torch.

Second, it seems to me that the most disturbing part of the statements by Obama is the use of "stupid". The lipstick comment was ... well, stupid, but forgivable. I don't think it was malicious on Obama's part, but was unseemly given the context of the campaign. When Palin made her bulldog/lipstick comment, I immediately thought "here we go", and it was just a matter of time before someone made the pig/lipstick analogy and everything would go the way of ... well internet message board threads, for instance. I thought it would be a shrill congressman or something that would first make the comment, though.

However, saying the "American people aren't stupid" is really saying "the American people that don't agree with me are stupid". That just gives the hint that Obama is arrogant and makes him subject to being painted as an elitist. This one comment may pass (especially since Palin is on pretty thin ice with the Bridge issue, and the Republicans would be better off not mentioning it again ... unfortunately, they're too stubborn to let it go), but if it's a harbinger of things to come then Obama may shoot down his own campaign (with a nod to someone's mention of Kerry above).

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:

Quote:"I mean, you can't just make stuff up," Obama said of a new McCain ad that says Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." "You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid."

DrTorch Wrote:Maybe I fit your definition of "biblical literalist" or "creationist" or maybe I don't. But, I confess I take offense at being told I'm ignorant of science, especially when often enough, I'm the only scientist in the room.

Maybe some of you guys are scientists too. But, I've got the degrees, the publications, and (for you libertarians) I've been gainfully employed as a scientist for years. Usually I'm commended for my rigor and care in design of experiments and interpretation.

And often enough my co-workers' (many who are good scientists and from several venues) jaws drop open when they hear I don't accept modern evolutionary theory. But, when pushed they find that I'm more versed in the subject than they.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Skepticism is a necessary element of all good scientists. Much scientific advancement is gained from challenging mainstream scientific though of the day.

However, on the issue of intelligent design, there are hypotheses but no rigorous scientific data that supports it, and certainly none that provides significant enough doubt towards its veracity over that of evolution that warrants its inclusion in the scientific curriculum.

In the interest of full disclosure, as a scientist with the degrees, publications, and employment history to please libertarians, disagree with your assessment and interpretation. A vast majority, >99% of scientists who are sufficiently versed in relevant fields, support the foundations of evolutionary theory.

In the end, though, science doesn't advance very much in a Dawkins vs. Behe style pi$$ing-match. It will be proven (or disproven) incrementally through good scientific investigation. I look forward to the reports of future scientific advances, and hope that if you are directly involved in these advances, that you will send me a preprint of any peer-reviewed intelligent design work you perform.