What is your truth?

[blazeofglory]

There are many truths and of course many layers of truth.

I am confused which truth should I embrace?

Biologists say love is a bilogical need and chemists say it is the chemistry that makes one love another.

In the meantime Spiritualists say love is a spiritual thing, immatrial

Lovers have different stories to tell

Materialists say this world is material and there is no truth beyond matter or materialism is the ultimate truth.

Spiritualists say there is God and God created the world and the world is God' s manifestations.

There are so many truths and all are trying to raise their voices and reserve their spaces

Which truth should we follow? Or we are dellusoned being and truth is layered or obscured or can never be revealed to us

[caddy_caddy]

if u keep thinking of the subject, you'll go mad or end nihilistic .

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

Maybe there's no such thing as truth?

[Scheherazade]

The things you have listed are not necessary "truth" but opinions or point of views on various issues.

[weltanschauung]

"rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith, and this naive faith requires necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplyfications which are provided by the myth maker to keep the ordinary person on course.' (reinhold niebuhr - moral man and immoral society)

with that being said, are you able to securely separate truth from non-truth, without the stain of someone else's view?
havent met many that could. the thing is, if you take anyone else's answer for the answer, then you will not be able to ever formulate the acceptable definition for this concept.
go!

[Cunninglinguist]

Science is the study of the world; art is the study of the soul. It has oftentimes seemed to me that one cannot effectively approach science qualitatively nor can one effectively approach art* quantitatively. For, to do the former, you would see the world not for what it is but rather as a reflection of yourself, and to do the latter would render the emotional aspect - the human aspect – of art, which is necessary in order to fully realize the piece of art for what it is, lost. Both art and science have their virtues, yet their methodologies are typically less than productive when they over-step their bounds (which so regularly happens). I don’t think it would be wise to go through life only respecting one or the other; science and art perpetually confer their benefits to everyone, even when they do not recognize this.

To feel, does that feeling have to be any less in virtue of one’s knowledge? I don’t think knowledge damages the emotional faculties (this idea, quite frankly, makes little sense to me), I think attitude does. And when you have the right attitude, I ask when you see a rainbow and can also describe its physical properties; do you see it for less or for more?

Humans naturally try to win their worldview to others. This is not necessarily a bad thing. We do this because if a community all shares the same way of understanding then that community will be tightly integrated. So we try to raise our voices with this end in heart, though methods usually count for more than intentions.

If happiness is our ultimate priority, then it does stand to reason that truth will be those concepts which serve to make us happier. In this way, I don’t think one should only follow one or the other side of this dichotomy of art and science; materialism and spiritualism; atheism and acosmism/theism. There will always be scientists and there will always be artists.

*I use the terms art and science in a less literal sense than what is common. I understand there is a qualitative to science and a quantitative side to art. Yet in a strict sense all qualitative observances are but observances of projections of the self onto objects.



with that being said, are you able to securely separate truth from non-truth, without the stain of someone else's view? havent met many that could. the thing is, if you take anyone else's answer for the answer, then you will not be able to ever formulate the acceptable definition for this concept.
go!

We could all define the word "truth" however we please, yet when we use it in practice our definitions tend to clash with others'. I am not sure if anyone can formulate an idea of truth (or anything) free of influence. Though if this is possible we can defend our definition of truth, immaculate of all influence, in spite of others' to the death. However, you seem to be saying to not do this is somehow bad or weak or stupid (If I am wrong please rectify). I assure you, though, that doing such is not an unequivocal virtue, as it can be a symptom of great intelligence or great pig-headedness (or both). Blaze asks us what we think is the best definition to hold. To this, I have no answer other than to keep an open mind.

[blazeofglory]

if u keep thinking of the subject, you'll go mad or end nihilistic .

Hi Caddy?

Can we stop asking it?

[weltanschauung]

We could all define the word "truth" however we please, yet when we use it in practice our definitions tend to clash with others'. I am not sure if anyone can formulate an idea of truth (or anything) free of influence. Though if this is possible we can defend our definition of truth, immaculate of all influence, in spite of others' to the death. However, you seem to be saying to not do this is somehow bad or weak or stupid (If I am wrong please rectify). I assure you, though, that doing such is not an unequivocal virtue, as it can be a symptom of great intelligence or great pig-headedness (or both). Blaze asks us what we think is the best definition to hold. To this, I have no answer other than to keep an open mind.

yes, we could, but do we?
what happens most often is that one person or a group of them defines it and everyone is obliged to live under the spade that it holds.
in an infinite universe, any point may be considered the centre since all of them have an infinite number of stars around it. if i am the centre of the universe, and i am, what is keeping me from shaping my universe as i please?
in a quantum mechanics point of view, there is no independent reality outside of the mind. if my mind is the only thing that is real, and the outside is merely a subjective interpretation that i build everyday, truth may be defined to me as anything that is indisputable to my mind.
nothing that is happening outside of my mind is real unless i recognize it as such. with that being said, we are all entitled to define our realities and our truths, and the hell with the outside world.
note that i am not implying we should all go provoquing havocs simply because "my truth is different from everyone elses anyways". this position of absolute liberty and authority can only be held by those who understand that, however the outside reality is absolutely relative to my own structuration of it, the other people are also entitled to formulate their own (even if, in a relativistic philosophical point of view, others are simply a figment of my own imagination as far as tangible reality is concerned).
in a brief sentence: just because i am entitled to live under the umbrella of truth that i made for myself, that doesnt mean my umbrella will fit the whole world of people under it. and to be quite frank, i am very satisfied with this fact.

[The Atheist]

There are many truths and of course many layers of truth.

I am confused which truth should I embrace?

Well, you should embrace whichever one you feel most comfortable with, but I find the following works pretty well:

Reality exists. You can expand on that to "Reality exists and is both observable and measurable".

Everything else follows on nicely from that.

[Ecurb]

Well, you should embrace whichever one you feel most comfortable with, but I find the following works pretty well:

Reality exists. You can expand on that to "Reality exists and is both observable and measurable".

Everything else follows on nicely from that.

Huh? The suggestion that reality is "observable and measurable" is surely limiting. Is our expanding universe the limit of reality? Is our universe "measurable"? If things are not measurable, does that mean they aren't "reality"? In the premicroscope days before humans could "observe" bacteria, were they somehow unreal? Did Pluto blink into existance when it was first "observed"?

The Atheists' assumptions (paradigms) limit and alter reality. He is putting the cart before the horse.

[Dodo25]

The answer lies in consilience.

Everything is interconnected. That's sounds suspicioulsy metaphysical, but that's not what I mean!

At the top of the order are the humanities. Humanities don't violate biology/chemistry/phsysics, and neither are the independent of it! The humanities simplify things in an effective way. Still, if one is looking for explanations, one has to dig deeper into the hierarchy. This is reductionism, good reductionism. Even the humanities should be part of the natural sciences. Ethical questions can be answered by science, and science also has convincing and interesting things to say about art.

Biology, with focus on evolution, explains why humans are the way they are. It provides ultimate explanations instead of proximate ones, but also only insofar as it simplifies atoms and molecules into cells and genes. Biology doesn't violate chemistry or physics, but it would be unhelpful to try to explain the behavior of a chimpanzee in turns of gravity, up and down quarks and electrons!

Another organizational level down, where the components are smaller again, we have chemistry.

And in the end, at the very bottom lies particle physics, which gives (or tries to give) the ultimate explanation to everything.

'What is truth' or 'How many truths are there?' is the wrong question to ask. We should instead ask 'which model best predicts reality?' And the best answer we can get, even though it might never be perfect, is what can label as 'truth'. This is called model-dependent realism.

[weltanschauung]

The answer lies in consilience.
Biology, with focus on evolution, explains why humans are the way they are. It provides ultimate explanations instead of proximate ones, but also only insofar as it simplifies atoms and molecules into cells and genes. Biology doesn't violate chemistry or physics, but it would be unhelpful to try to explain the behavior of a chimpanzee in turns of gravity, up and down quarks and electrons!

Another organizational level down, where the components are smaller again, we have chemistry.

And in the end, at the very bottom lies particle physics, which gives (or tries to give) the ultimate explanation to everything.

nothing explains it for sure. it just tries to circle around it. we dont know if darwin was right, but we assume he was and on top of that we formulate everything else. we dont know what atoms are, but we imagine something that fits the model we invented for it in order to attempt to comprehend it. chemistry, physics, biology, its nothing but hypotheticizing. none of it is THE truth. but A possible one. and in an universe of infinite possibilities, it is also possible that we are wrong about absolutely everything, despite the fact that we might blindly believe in it.
just by looking at an atom, you already change what it is, and what it is remains an unsolvable mystery, since we have to look in order to know, but by looking, we change its true form.
there is no truth but the one you invent. so, be creative.

[Dodo25]

nothing explains it for sure. it just tries to circle around it. we dont know if darwin was right, but we assume he was and on top of that we formulate everything else.

What year do you live in? We do know that Darwin was right about the basics of evolution, and we also know that the people who came up with the modern synthesis, i.e. Fisher, Haldane and Meyr were right about their stuff as well. That was in the 1940s, and since then it's is beyond a doubt clear that evolution happened, and that natural selection is the main mechanism responsible for adaptation.



we dont know what atoms are, but we imagine something that fits the model we invented for it in order to attempt to comprehend it. chemistry, physics, biology, its nothing but hypotheticizing. none of it is THE truth. but A possible one. and in an universe of infinite possibilities, it is also possible that we are wrong about absolutely everything, despite the fact that we might blindly believe in it.

Read my post carefully. I defined 'truth' as making correct predictions. Our models and scientific theories do make correct predictions, you can't deny that, so they can't be completely wrong. They might well be incomplete, but you're assuming things are either black or white when there's clearly a whole universe in between. And simply stating 'everything is relative, we can't know anything...' doesn't help anyone. If all people thought like that we wouldn't have any of the scientific achievements.



just by looking at an atom, you already change what it is, and what it is remains an unsolvable mystery, since we have to look in order to know, but by looking, we change its true form.
there is no truth but the one you invent. so, be creative.

Typical, the way to end an argument 'against science' is to bring up quantum mechanics (which is science by the way, if you were consistent you should say we don't know about that either!) and simply, 'because we don't know', interpret it the way YOU want to. Quantum mechanics has become the one area where everyone without credentials whatsoever can make silly claims -- and people will believe it if they want to.

[Cunninglinguist]

what happens most often is that one person or a group of them defines it and everyone is obliged to live under the spade that it holds. in an infinite universe, any point may be considered the centre since all of them have an infinite number of stars around it. if i am the centre of the universe, and i am, what is keeping me from shaping my universe as i please?

Though, once again, to do so isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The universe question, first brought about by Newton, is outmoded. We happen to reliably know that the universe is finite and bounded and therefore does have a center.

If you want to be part of a community, which all normal human beings have a natural propensity for, then you might be inclined to listen to their conception of "truth."


in a quantum mechanics point of view, there is no independent reality outside of the mind. if my mind is the only thing that is real, and the outside is merely a subjective interpretation that i build everyday, truth may be defined to me as anything that is indisputable to my mind.
nothing that is happening outside of my mind is real unless i recognize it as such. with that being said, we are all entitled to define our realities and our truths, and the hell with the outside world.

The way you have worded it, that is only one, rather unpopular interpretation among academic professionals of quantum mechanics. To say that the electron either ceases or continues to exist when we are not in observance of it are both unprovable postulations in virtue of the fact that we can never observe the properties of an unobserved electron. To say there is no reality outside of my mind is to make an unjustified leap from "I cannot know beyond what I observe" to "there is nothing beyond what I observe." The rest of your argument, being based on this, therefore follows from a fallacy.
"Truth may be defined to me as anything that is indisputable to my mind." Yes, it may, if you're going to permit truth to be essentially an agent-relative thing. Though this is a highly unintuitive definition of truth, therefore it is behooves us to define it as the hypothetical (even if essentially unknowable) objective, which applies to everyone. To go back to the electron, it is more intuitive and pragmatic to assume that it continues to exist when we are not in observance of it since a) most all people hold this assumption and b) this assumption has no practical detriments.
From your definition all we may know to be true is our immediate sensations, which are presumably self-evident (yes, I realize the irony of the phrase "presumably self-evident," though I do this for a reason) to us. How you get the conclusion we should define truth by only our standards from the solipsistic realization is beyond me, and, in essence, is defeated by the is-ought problem.


Huh? The suggestion that reality is "observable and measurable" is surely limiting. Is our expanding universe the limit of reality? Is our universe "measurable"? If things are not measurable, does that mean they aren't "reality"? In the premicroscope days before humans could "observe" bacteria, were they somehow unreal? Did Pluto blink into existance when it was first "observed"?

The Atheists' assumptions (paradigms) limit and alter reality. He is putting the cart before the horse.

This is essentially a question of modality. While, given the facilities of a certain era, it may have been technologically impossible to observe bacteria, etc. (because the technology had not been invented) it was never physically impossible (it is not beyond the scope of physical possibility to invent the technology to observe bacteria and Pluto). The "measurableness" is assessed by this criterion of physical possibility. So I don't think The Atheist is making any such mistake by what he said.


nothing explains it for sure. it just tries to circle around it. we dont know if darwin was right, but we assume he was and on top of that we formulate everything else. we dont know what atoms are, but we imagine something that fits the model we invented for it in order to attempt to comprehend it. chemistry, physics, biology, its nothing but hypotheticizing. none of it is THE truth. but A possible one. and in an universe of infinite possibilities, it is also possible that we are wrong about absolutely everything, despite the fact that we might blindly believe in it.
just by looking at an atom, you already change what it is, and what it is remains an unsolvable mystery, since we have to look in order to know, but by looking, we change its true form.
there is no truth but the one you invent. so, be creative.

You skepticism seems unfortunately nonconstructive. while some of it (I am even dubious about this) might be founded on sound argument, it can and probably should be eschewed from pragmatic assumptions such as evolution and the properties of atoms if we are to get anywhere worth going to.

Edit:

Typical, the way to end an argument 'against science' is to bring up quantum mechanics (which is science by the way, if you were consistent you should say we don't know about that either!) and simply, 'because we don't know', interpret it the way YOU want to. Quantum mechanics has become the one area where everyone without credentials whatsoever can make silly claims -- and people will believe it if they want to.

Yes - the hypocrisy of the postmodernists strikes again. lol

[weltanschauung]

What year do you live in? We do know that Darwin was right about the basics of evolution, and we also know that the people who came up with the modern synthesis, i.e. Fisher, Haldane and Meyr were right about their stuff as well. That was in the 1940s, and since then it's is beyond a doubt clear that evolution happened, and that natural selection is the main mechanism responsible for adaptation.



Read my post carefully. I defined 'truth' as making correct predictions. Our models and scientific theories do make correct predictions, you can't deny that, so they can't be completely wrong. They might well be incomplete, but you're assuming things are either black or white when there's clearly a whole universe in between. And simply stating 'everything is relative, we can't know anything...' doesn't help anyone. If all people thought like that we wouldn't have any of the scientific achievements.



Typical, the way to end an argument 'against science' is to bring up quantum mechanics (which is science by the way, if you were consistent you should say we don't know about that either!) and simply, 'because we don't know', interpret it the way YOU want to. Quantum mechanics has become the one area where everyone without credentials whatsoever can make silly claims -- and people will believe it if they want to.


hahaha, do we? i dont know anything buddy. as a matter of fact, i think lamark was much closer to it than darwin. but listen, dont let me destroy your world. believe everything everyone has ever told you, its way way easier and besides, almost 6 billion people live like that.
http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/3.gif


oh, and btw, i wasnt trying to 'make an argument against science' as you put it, and just because you phrased it like that it does not mean that is what i did. as a matter of fact, i am an electrical engineer and have done extensive and reliable study on the topic, unlike most wikkipedia literates around the interwebs. once again, youre trying to discredit MY TRUTH with yours, and it simply wont work. but nice try.

[Dodo25]

hahaha, do we? i dont know anything buddy. as a matter of fact, i think lamark was much closer to it than darwin. but listen, dont let me destroy your world. believe everything everyone has ever told you, its way way easier and besides, almost 6 billion people live like that.
http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/3.gif


Lamark got it utterly wrong. Epigenetics is interesting, yeah, but the recent hysteria about it is really just a lot of hot air. Epigenetics can't account for adaptation, which is all the 'design' that needs an explanation. It works with switching on/off pre-existing genes, it doesn't create new genes, and it certainly doesn't create new genes in a specific way as to increase an organism's fitness, and that's what Lamark mistakenly claimed.

And as for the rest of your post, it speaks for itself, your arguments turn out to be nonsense and then you just retreat to talking games..

[weltanschauung]

"lamark got it utterly wrong", i see you are holding the ceptre now, i better not talk back i'll end up at some stake, heh?
genes mutate when they need, can you prove otherwise? can you deny the interconnectivity of nature and its most necessary need to keep surviving?

and this, as usual has turned into an irrelevant argument. im out.
all i was trying to say is that all knowledge is but an accepted version of something that is actually unknown. you may know nature through its manifestations, but then again, all you know is the manifestation and not nature itself. even the most likely to happen do not happen. all the time. nothing is indisputable to me and thats final. there is no truth. there are truths. everything is nothing but a point of view.
"sure the picture is in my eye, but i am also in the picture"
merry christmas.
:)

[The Atheist]

Huh? The suggestion that reality is "observable and measurable" is surely limiting.

Doesn't appear to have limited us so far. Every single discovery about the universe has been measurable and observable - right down to subatomic particles as is the case with the LHC.


Is our expanding universe the limit of reality?

No. Why would that be the case?

If there is something outside of our universe, it still exists and will be both observable and measurable.


Is our universe "measurable"?

Obviously. The distances between stars and galaxies which we have observed are well known. Whether we will ultimately be able to observe all of the universe will depend on whether humankind lasts long enough that the universe slows down its expansion, or our methods of observation improve.

What part of it do you think might be non-measurable?


If things are not measurable, does that mean they aren't "reality"?

"Aren't real" is how I'd put it.


In the premicroscope days before humans could "observe" bacteria, were they somehow unreal? Did Pluto blink into existance when it was first "observed"?

Do I really need to answer those faclie questions?

Just because we did not, and may still not, have the tools to observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you can find anywhere I said "observe or measure with the tools available right now", then you would have an argument. That's what's so good about observing the universe in a spectre of reality - new discoveries are made all the time, telescopes get better, we build better microscopes, superconductors, hadron colliders - you name it.

There is a fairly confident claim that "darK' energy and matter control the behaviour of planets and stars. Right now we have no means of measuring it, but I hold strong hope that we will.


The Atheists' assumptions (paradigms) limit and alter reality. He is putting the cart before the horse.

No, you have altered my statement out of all recognition by using fallacies.


hahaha, do we? i dont know anything buddy. as a matter of fact, i think lamark was much closer to it than darwin.

I find it interesting that you've decided to remove yourself from the argument, because your position is indefensible.

Lamark was wrong. Multiple studies have proven him wrong.

If you think you have any evidence that his theories on evolution were right, please go ahead and present it, because I do not believe such a thing exists.

Pity really; cute theory.

[weltanschauung]

i am entitled to defent whatever i want, this world of mine is mine and not yours.
:)

[Dodo25]

"lamark got it utterly wrong", i see you are holding the ceptre now, i better not talk back i'll end up at some stake, heh?
genes mutate when they need, can you prove otherwise? can you deny the interconnectivity of nature and its most necessary need to keep surviving?


I don't need to prove otherwise, YOU need to support your claims with evidence before I need to even take them seriously.

[weltanschauung]

i dont need to support anything, buddy. read the tittle of the thread. you people are so involved with who is right or wrong. right or wrong are relative concepts.
it is possible to prove anything as long as there is enough money involved. or enough people who care in order to obtain some kind of priviledge over it. to me, its all irrelevant. i dont care about proving. you go ahead and do it, here's your badge.

[Dodo25]

Ugh, this is worse than creationism!

[weltanschauung]

yeah, but without the jesus!
so, its better.

[Drkshadow03]

. . . and science also has convincing and interesting things to say about art.


I'm actually interested in hearing you elaborate on this point. What convincing and interesting things does science have to say about art?

[Ecurb]

This is essentially a question of modality. While, given the facilities of a certain era, it may have been technologically impossible to observe bacteria, etc. (because the technology had not been invented) it was never physically impossible (it is not beyond the scope of physical possibility to invent the technology to observe bacteria and Pluto). The "measurableness" is assessed by this criterion of physical possibility. So I don't think The Atheist is making any such mistake by what he said.



Granted, but that begs the question of "measurable and observable by whom"? If we humans can neither measure nor observe something, it hardly makes sense to say that such a thing is "measurable and observable". Doubtless there are countless things that we can neither measure nor observe that will some day be measurable and observable... just as there are countless things that we CAN measure and observe that our ancestors could not. However, such things are not measurable and observable BY US, just as bacteria were not by our ancestors.

It's amusing to see Atheist arguing that things exist that are NOT measurable and observable at the exact same time that he argues that truth MUST BE measurable and observable.


Just because we did not, and may still not, have the tools to observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So to exist something must be measurable and observable, but we may not be able to measure or observe it. How do we know it's measurable and observable if we can't measure or observe it? Cryptic as ever, The Atheist doesn't say.

Dodo's conception of truth is equally bizzare:
I defined 'truth' as making correct predictions. The notion that "truth" involves only the future and never the past is contrary to all common sense. Surely we best recognize the "true" winner of a horse race after the race is run, not before it is run. Is the lucky guesser of the winner possessed of greater truth than the newspaper who reports the winner the next day?

[Dodo25]

I'm actually interested in hearing you elaborate on this point. What convincing and interesting things does science have to say about art?

It can explain what beauty is and why we want it.

This should give a brief summary: http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html

The animations are sort of annoying in the video, oh well...

If you want more, I think the guy wrote books on it too. And Stephen Pinker has written on the subject as well. Dennett too I think.



Dodo's conception of truth is equally bizzare: The notion that "truth" involves only the future and never the past is contrary to all common sense. Surely we best recognize the "true" winner of a horse race after the race is run, not before it is run. Is the lucky guesser of the winner possessed of greater truth than the newspaper who reports the winner the next day?

That's not what I meant, but I can see how it's confusing, I didn't phrase it clearly. The predictions don't have to be about the future. Take evolution for an example. The theory makes hundreds of predictions, i.e.

- Fossils of 'simpler' organisms should be found in older strata, while complex, 'newer' species should NOT be found there.

- Humans have 23 chromosomes, the other great apes 24. Since a whole chromosome deleting itself would most likely kill the organism, two chromosomes must have fused since the time our common ancestor with chimps lived, so there should be a human chromosome with traces of a fusion.

- Evolution expects there to be 'mistakes in design'.

- Evolution expects that species where the male is extravagantly ornamented and beautiful are polygamous.

Notice how all the 'predictions' above are not strictly about the future. Of course, it only works as a prediction if there once was a time where the answer wasn't known. But after the prediction has been fulfilled, it counts as evidence, and the model/theory can now be used for real 'future predictions', i.e.,

if I put bacteria in a petri dish, keep feeding them with sugar till they multiply and then starve, then take out the surviving ones, put them into a new petri dish and repeat the procedure again and again, the bacteria should evolve to become better at digesting suger / rest of the solution, surviving overcrowding, reproducing etc..

[The Atheist]

i am entitled to defent whatever i want, this world of mine is mine and not yours.
:)


i dont need to support anything, buddy. read the tittle of the thread. you people are so involved with who is right or wrong. right or wrong are relative concepts.

So 2 + 2 really can equal 5?

That's what you're saying, because that's the level of refutation of Lamark.


It's amusing to see Atheist arguing that things exist that are NOT measurable and observable at the exact same time that he argues that truth MUST BE measurable and observable.

Nope. I haven't said that anywhere; please go back and re-read.



So to exist something must be measurable and observable, but we may not be able to measure or observe it. How do we know it's measurable and observable if we can't measure or observe it? Cryptic as ever, The Atheist doesn't say.

There's nothing at all cryptic in it - I even gave you the point of dark energy. There is sufficient evidence of the action of dark energy to know that something exists from the behaviour of planets, stars and galaxies.

That we cannot measure it right now has no bearing on its existence - it is real, and will clearly be measurable at some future time.


if I put bacteria in a petri dish, keep feeding them with sugar till they multiply and then starve, then take out the surviving ones, put them into a new petri dish and repeat the procedure again and again, the bacteria should evolve to become better at digesting suger / rest of the solution, surviving overcrowding, reproducing etc..

No, that's wrong.

You're attempting to credit evolution with the ability to evolve to suit situations, when the fact is that mutations can be benevolent or not - there is no guarantee they will occur at all, especially with something like a bacterium.

You'd be better to use antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which I think covers the point you were trying to make.

[Dodo25]

If one keeps doing it for long enough, odds are some evolutionary shift will happen, as it did here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

But I see what you mean, it's not a certainty since it depends on how the mutations go. Antibiotic resistance works better indeed.

[Drkshadow03]

It can explain what beauty is and why we want it.

This should give a brief summary: http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html

The animations are sort of annoying in the video, oh well...

If you want more, I think the guy wrote books on it too. And Stephen Pinker has written on the subject as well. Dennett too I think.



It's an interesting theory to extend the ideas of evolution to explain the development of human's desire for art. Nevertheless, I think there are tons of little problems with this argument too.

[weltanschauung]

So 2 + 2 really can equal 5?

That's what you're saying, because that's the level of refutation of Lamark.

is it really? where did i say that? and what is the level of refutation of lamark?
oh wait, nevermind, your answer doesnt matter!
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/bs/scan0002.jpg
JUST KIDDING




There's nothing at all cryptic in it - I even gave you the point of dark energy. There is sufficient evidence of the action of dark energy to know that something exists from the behaviour of planets, stars and galaxies.


there is NO evidence. NONE. ZIP.
dark energy is a theorical necessity in order for string theory to be the most acceptable MODEL.
"something exists somewhere from the behaviour of this that and those, i read somewhere"http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif



That we cannot measure it right now has no bearing on its existence - it is real, and will clearly be measurable at some future time.

a prophet!



anyways, something that did not come out of wikipedia:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/physics/f734635d.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/physics/7645c532.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/physics/Imagem001.jpg

anyways, gotta take off. i "got a roll of lifesavers in my pocket and pineapple is next!"

[OrphanPip]

there is NO evidence. NONE. ZIP.
dark energy is a theorical necessity in order for string theory to be the most acceptable MODEL.
"something exists somewhere from the behaviour of this that and those, i read somewhere"

I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about. Many formulations of string theory actually refute the existence of dark matter, dark matter is inferred from gravitational effects.

Also, as a trained biologist, I'd really like to see how you think Lamarkism is anywhere near an adequate explanation of evolution. It doesn't make any sense and is contradicted by everything we know of reproductive biology and genetics. You keep shifting any attempt to address anything, you're just a troll.

And also for the math thing, the addition of -2AB actually brings the equation to zero. It's only a clever math trick if you don't understand how algebra works.

So with that said, everyone please just ignore the troll.

Edit: As to the issue of science and truth. Science is not about reaching an absolute truth of the universe, if anything that's an antiquated 19th century conception of science. Science is a methodology, when properly pursued, has shown itself effective at understanding physical phenomena adequately enough to generate reliable predictions which give us useful ways to understand more physical phenomena or develop useful things like vaccines. To rely on scientific empiricism is not to deny the existence of things unknown, it is to maintain a position that things unknown and unobservable can not be usefully commented on.

Science isn't about truth, it is about practicality and reliability.

[Ecurb]

Edit: As to the issue of science and truth. Science is not about reaching an absolute truth of the universe, if anything that's an antiquated 19th century conception of science. Science is a methodology, when properly pursued, has shown itself effective at understanding physical phenomena adequately enough to generate reliable predictions which give us useful ways to understand more physical phenomena or develop useful things like vaccines. To rely on scientific empiricism is not to deny the existence of things unknown, it is to maintain a position that things unknown and unobservable can not be usefully commented on.

Science isn't about truth, it is about practicality and reliability.

Exactly. There’s no doubt that science has had a dramatic impact on our ability to make technological advances. As OrphanPip says, science is a method for organizing, predicting, and thinking about facts. The facts (not "reality) are what The Atheist might call “observable and measurable”. Gravity, for example, is not a “fact”, but a scientific theory. The “facts” are the planets circling about, the balls dropping from the Leaning Tower of Pizza, etc. The facts are observable and measurable – the theory is either falsified or not falsified by observation of the facts. Gravity itself (as far as I know, and I’m no physicist) is NOT observable – it is inferred from movements of physical objects which ARE observable.

My disagreement with The Atheist is based on the obvious truth that reality is NOT always observable and measurable. Of course I’ll grant that we don’t know what this reality is (since we can’t observe or measure it), but human history clearly shows that some things that we couldn’t observe and measure in the past are observable and measurable today, and, doubtless, some things that we can’t observe and measure today will be observable and measurable in the future. I suppose we could distinguish between “facts” (“something known by observation to be true or real”) and “reality” or "truth"– which, we can assume, exists whether it can be observed and measured or not.

[The Atheist]

Science is not about reaching an absolute truth of the universe, if anything that's an antiquated 19th century conception of science. Science is a methodology, when properly pursued, has shown itself effective at understanding physical phenomena adequately enough to generate reliable predictions which give us useful ways to understand more physical phenomena or develop useful things like vaccines. To rely on scientific empiricism is not to deny the existence of things unknown, it is to maintain a position that things unknown and unobservable can not be usefully commented on.

I love the way you say it, but I'm sick of seeing you have to say it.


Many formulations of string theory actually refute the existence of dark matter, dark matter is inferred from gravitational effects.

Just a note on this one, too - I want to note that I know nothing in detail about the subject - I use the term "dark matter/energy" to cover what is clearly an effect or ?? or some kind that exists.


My disagreement with The Atheist is based on the obvious truth that reality is NOT always observable and measurable.

Go ahead, make my day.

What part of reality is neither observable nor measurable?

Your words - "obvious truth"; now back them up.

[OrphanPip]

Just a note on this one, too - I want to note that I know nothing in detail about the subject - I use the term "dark matter/energy" to cover what is clearly an effect or ?? or some kind that exists.


My understanding of it is rudimentary at best anyway. I only have some basic education in quantum mechanics as a general science part of my education which has been far more focused on molecular biology and genetics.

[Ecurb]

J

What part of reality is neither observable nor measurable?

Your words - "obvious truth"; now back them up.

I already explained this once, and it's so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it again. However, kind, charitable and generous person that I am, I will.

First (as I said earlier) certain things (like bacteria) that were neither observable nor measurable in the past are now accepted as "real". Doubtless some things we cannot observe and measure will be observable and measurable in the future, and are just as real now as bacteria were in the past. However, since we cannot observe of measure them, we have no idea what they are, or whether they will be observable or measurable.

Second, since the (known) universe is expanding, some things that we can assume are "real" may never be observable or measurable by us.

Third, a great many subatomic particles (neutrinos, for example) are neither observable nor measurable -- instead, their effects are observable and measurable, and their existance is postulated from measurement of other things.

Fourth, the words "observable" and "measurable" imply observation and measurment. The Atheist says,
"I even gave you the point of dark energy. There is sufficient evidence of the action of dark energy to know that something exists from the behaviour of planets, stars and galaxies.

That we cannot measure it right now has no bearing on its existence - it is real, and will clearly be measurable at some future time."

Surely this is a leap of faith. One might as well say that since angels can observe God, God is observable. How do you (or anyone else) know what will "clearly" be measurable at some future time?

[zoolane]

There are many truths and of course many layers of truth.

I am confused which truth should I embrace?

Biologists say love is a bilogical need and chemists say it is the chemistry that makes one love another.

In the meantime Spiritualists say love is a spiritual thing, immatrial

Lovers have different stories to tell

Materialists say this world is material and there is no truth beyond matter or materialism is the ultimate truth.

Spiritualists say there is God and God created the world and the world is God' s manifestations.

There are so many truths and all are trying to raise their voices and reserve their spaces

Which truth should we follow? Or we are dellusoned being and truth is layered or obscured or can never be revealed to us

My truth is what know to be true or fact and believe in. I like know I love to reading and writing. I love my children also I know trying hardest to myself or trying pass my English GCSE.

[Dodo25]

@Ecurb, there's a distinction of 'in reality' and 'in principle'. Even if there are things we'll never be able to explain, it doesn't mean that they can't be explained in principle.

[Ecurb]

@Ecurb, there's a distinction of 'in reality' and 'in principle'. Even if there are things we'll never be able to explain, it doesn't mean that they can't be explained in principle.

True. But my point is that some things that are real cannot be observed or measured by us. The words "observed" and "measured" imply an observer and a measurer. It is certainly true that a hypothetical observer on the other side of the universe could probably observe parts of the universe that we cannot and that we may never be able to observe (because they are receding at the speed of light).

How do I know that real things exist that we cannot observe? I don't. I'm making an educated guess. But neither does anyone know that such things do NOT exist.

[Dodo25]

How do I know that real things exist that we cannot observe? I don't. I'm making an educated guess. But neither does anyone know that such things do NOT exist.

Actually, I'm not sure whether there is anything that distinquishes your view from epiphenomenalism, which is a view in philosophy which has been clearly refuted. It's possible to prove a negative if it is internally inconsistent, and I think 'unobservable things' might well be. Effects can be measured. If something doesn't produce any effects, it doesn't really exist, does it?

And let's not forget that the burden of evidence/proof rests on you, since you make a positive claim which CAN and SHOULD be supported by evidence.

If I tell you that I believe that Narnia is in my wardrobe, you'd want to see evidence as well. And you won't be happy with simply hearing 'you can't disprove it, so it might as well exist, why don't we say the odds are 50-50 because there are only two possibilities?'.

[Ecurb]

If something doesn't produce any effects, it doesn't really exist, does it?

'.

That's true. But we cannot observe and measure all things that produce effects. Some things that exist may produce effects that we are incapable of observing or measuring -- just like bacteria existed before we could observe and measure them.




If I tell you that I believe that Narnia is in my wardrobe, you'd want to see evidence as well..

If you were as cool as Lucy Pevensie I'd believe you without seeing the evidence.

[Dodo25]

If you were as cool as Lucy Pevensie I'd believe you without seeing the evidence.

I should really start using a different example than Narnia. I don't ever want to be reminded of that character again, watching one movie was way enough!

[The Atheist]

I already explained this once, and it's so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it again. However, kind, charitable and generous person that I am, I will.

First (as I said earlier) certain things (like bacteria) that were neither observable nor measurable in the past are now accepted as "real".

Yes, and I explained why that was both naive and irrelevant, but never mind, now you've said it twice, I won't bother asking again. Repeating fallacies doesn't make them true.

[Ecurb]

Yes, and I explained why that was both naive and irrelevant, but never mind, now you've said it twice, I won't bother asking again. Repeating fallacies doesn't make them true.

I notice that you don't bother explaining how we can "observe and measure" portions of the universe that are moving away from us at the speed of light, or how, if we cannot, these portions of the universe are not part of "reality" (according to your original post).

That's OK, though. Carry on.

[The Atheist]

I notice that you don't bother explaining how we can "observe and measure" portions of the universe that are moving away from us at the speed of light, or how, if we cannot, these portions of the universe are not part of "reality" (according to your original post).

No, and I have explained ad nauseum why this is both fallacious and irrelevant. It's also why I gave the example of dark energy - using known physics we can make deductions on many questions we cannot "see" the answer to. Quantum mechanics is another example, which is why scientists have spent many billions of Euros at CERN.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's not correct and does not relate to what I've posted.

[Ecurb]

Reality exists. You can expand on that to "Reality exists and is both observable and measurable".


....using known physics we can make deductions on many questions we cannot "see" the answer to.

You have every right to change your position. However, "deductions" are neither observations nor measurements.

Abstract mathematical (or other logical) deductions are neither observable nor measurable. To the extent that mathematical "truths" are "true", they offer another example a truth or reality that is neither observable nor measurable.

[The Atheist]

You have every right to change your position. However, "deductions" are neither observations nor measurements.

No change of position - you asked how we can identify things that we are unable to observe at this time.


Abstract mathematical (or other logical) deductions are neither observable nor measurable. To the extent that mathematical "truths" are "true", they offer another example a truth or reality that is neither observable nor measurable.

Complete rubbish. They are measurable and observable because they are testable and repeatable.

[Ecurb]

No change of position - you asked how we can identify things that we are unable to observe at this time. .

No I didn't. I asked how we are able to know that in the future we will be able to observe things we cannot observe now. If something is not observable now, it is a leap of faith to say that will one day be observable (excpet in certain specific cases, like the far side of the moon when we know we're sending a space craft to orbit it).



Complete rubbish. They (mathematical truths) are measurable and observable because they are testable and repeatable.

When you learn how to "observe" the square root of negative one, let me know. Math is a logical system and is not necessarily correlated with observable truths. It is true that logic is "testable" (under its own standards ) and "repeatable" -- but it doesn't follow that it is always "observable".

[Ecurb]

To clarify (and since this is a literary message board) I'll offer the following, from Lewis Carroll:

If

(1) Babies are illogical;
(2) Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile;
(3) Illogical persons are despised.

Then

No babies can manage a crocodile.

Of course Carroll (aka Charles Dodgson) was a math professor at Oxford. The above syllogism is (many would argue) "true", but it isn't "observable or measurable" unless, of course, we want to actually throw the babies in with the crocodiles to test the conclusions, which might end badly, and would, however well or badly the babies managed the crocodiles, fail to either prove or disprove the syllogism.

Even if we disprove the conclusion, and find a baby that can manage a crocodile, we have not shown the syllogism to be untrue, because of the clauses "if" and "then".