XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Taemon@zonnet.nl   
      
   Sorry my replies always take so long. The reasons aren't particularly   
   interesting. I suspect you don't mind anyway.   
      
   On 29-7-2014 19:18, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   > On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:55:36 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >    
   >    
      
   That, too. I found it an enjoyable discussion.   
      
   > On 23-7-2014 19:16, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:19:30 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >>>> On 18-7-2014 18:57, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   >>> Really? If someone showed you a ray-gun, which was obviously designed,   
   >>> you believe that it could not be studied?   
   >> I was referring to the "magicmandidit" approach of adherers of   
   >> creationism/Intelligent Design.   
   > So you are really objecting to idiocy?   
      
   That's the question, isn't it? I say I do. They say they do. The other   
   day I got into a discussion with someone who thought God (I assume they   
   meant the Christian God) was the best explanation for the Universe   
   because the Big Bang was "a big magic explosion" and according to   
   scientists life "magically appeared one day" and hence, the Christian   
   religion does a better job. (Yes, the irony.)   
      
   Obviously, she (I think) thought I was an idiot for "believing" all   
   that. And since I didn't simply accept the obvious truth right in front   
   of me, I must be a stupid brainwashed imbecile incapable of discussion.   
   Oh, to get through to someone like that... Point is, by the nature of   
   things people are going to disagree on what is idiocy.   
      
   >>> Actually, to believe that something is designed is to believe that   
   >>> that is can be studied.   
   >> Let's just say anything can be studied?   
   > I think we are straying from the intended meaning. I mean "studied   
   > scientifically".   
   > If "studied" is interpreted more broadly, particularly in the Liberal   
   > Arts sense, then, yes, of course, anything can be "studied".   
   >   
   > Alternately, anything that a course is offered on can be "studied" by   
   > the "students". And since a course can be offered on anything anyone   
   > wants to talk about, again, anything can be "studied".   
   >   
   > Scientific study, however, imposes requirements on the object of   
   > study. For example, it is required to be, in a certain sense, uniform.   
      
   Well... maybe not anything can be studied now. But I would hold that   
   there is no principal impediment to study anything at all. Except maybe   
   "what was there before the Big Bang". Or certain koans (that is, after   
   all, their purpose). Or...   
      
   Hah, I'm drowning again in philosophy. I naturally gravitate to   
   discussions about subjects I know a lot about. It feels good to be out   
   of my depth once in a while.   
      
   > The simplest example is a counter-example: I don't know the current   
   > status, but a while back a dark matter detector in Italy was reporting   
   > success. However, its results had three strange characteristics:   
   >   
   > 1) The mass was about 1/2 of what was expected.   
   > 2) The dark matter was only detected for half the year (as if the   
   > Earth were moving into and out of a stream of the stuff).   
   > 3) A similar detector in Minnesotta (or perhaps Michigan), which   
   > /should/ have been able to detect the same particles, detected   
   > nothing.   
   >   
   > The first was ... interesting. The second was intriguing. But the   
   > third ... the third led to the suggestion that they had not detected   
   > dark matter or anything else, and that some local, seasonal,   
   > environmental, possibly man-caused effect had been detected instead.   
   > Well, either that or the detector in Michigan (or perhaps Minnesotta)   
   > wasn't actually turned on.   
   >   
   > Scientists /expect/ to get the same results wherever they are located   
   > (when experimenting under the same conditions). When this expectations   
   > is blatantly violated, they suggest that something is wrong with the   
   > equipment. And /that/ is what I mean be being "in a certain sense,   
   > uniform".   
      
   I assume they checked the equipment in Mi* and repeated the experiment?   
   Blatantly violated expectations are usually a sign of a mistake   
   ("elementary!") but if not, that's when it's getting interesting.   
      
   >>>>> Meanwhile, actual scientists, heedless of anti-design ideology, are   
   >>>>> trying to design their own organism (generally quite simple). Such is   
   >>>>> the result of mixing Science with Religion.   
   >>>> What's the part of religion in that?   
   >>> This belongs with the bit above.   
   >>> The point is that those who insist on the lack of design are behaving   
   >>> religiously, while actual scientists are behaving scientifically, and   
   >>> so have no concern about whether or not they are dealing with the   
   >>> products of design. A /scientist/ would not care if he or she proved   
   >>> that the course of evolution, for example, were not random; those who   
   >>> would, those who /insist/ that it /must/ be random, are behaving   
   >>> religiously.   
   >> Evolution is far from random. Also, if one found evidence against   
   >> evolution, that would be a great find (great as in having many   
   >> consequences). Also also, if one didn't study an organism from lack of   
   >> design, it would be hard to study it. So I have to disagree here.   
   > There are, or used to be, people on these newsgroups who are or were   
   > /adamant/ about the course of evolution being random.   
      
   I suspect you mean "not teleological". There's nothing random about   
   natural selection.   
      
   > Well, they have to be, don't they? If it isn't random, then that might   
   > be taken as proof of Design and hence of God, and they can't have   
   > that!   
      
   If someone found evicence of Design then there's a Nobel Prize for them   
   to collect. That would be an Earth-shattering find. I can assure you   
   many people have tried.   
      
   > And I don't see how saying "the heart evolved to pump blood" versus   
   > "the heart was designed to pump blood" in any way affects the fact   
   > that the heart pumps blood, or the value of that discovery to science.   
      
   I would use neither of those expressions (both are teleological) and   
   although they don't affect the facts of the heart, they do affect the   
   way of thinking of the researcher and hence, the research.   
      
   It is very hard for human beings not to think in terms of agency, it   
   lies at the core of our thinking and feeling. One of the strenghts of   
   science is that it is a mechanism to protect ourselves against the   
   faults in our reasoning. I think it is very important to keep all hints   
   of teleology out of our theories.   
      
   > And most of science can ignore the issue altogether. What does it   
   > matter to the "dark matter" crowd if the course of evolution is random   
   > or not?   
      
   I do not know the first thing about dark matter, but I suspect studying   
   it will be more fruitful if one keeps the idea that it should have a   
   purpose out of one's theories.   
      
   >>>> Nah, we know for a fact that large part of the Bible are untrue. So if   
   >>>> there's an All-Powerful Being, it's not that one.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)