'Science cannot provide all the answers'

Religions > Atheism > 'Science cannot provide all the answers'

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 26 of 30

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"maff"
Date:	04 Sep 2003 03:04:21 PM
Object:	'Science cannot provide all the answers'

'Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian
Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
it.
.

User: "Lenny Flank"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	04 Nov 2003 05:56:03 PM

"sb" <sb@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3fa801cb$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net>...

No because of this:

My front page

There are, essentially, only 3 options as to why we are what we are.

1 We are the sole result of a non-random process, i.e. God did it.

2 We are the sole result of random process.

3 We will never know.

That's it. That's your lot.

Number 2 is the only choice if one is looking for a scientific
explanation, or in fact, any explanation at all. If so, then these
papers are suggested as the only rational way to go. Why?

To my knowledge, there are no other known algorithms, than the one
described here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/replicatortheory.html, that can
create order from randomness.

What *other* theory, that doesn't include god, and addresses random
behaviour do you specifically have in mind?

Actually, the belief that the universe was created by a deity for the
purpose of being populated by humans, an entirely religious belief, is what
gave rise to the idea that, therefore, the universe is understandable. That
is, it is able to be understood by humans. This was a feature of the 18th
century Enlightenment; since "obviously" a watch must have a watchmaker, and
the world is "obviously" well-ordered (they said), we humans, part of this
ordered creation, must be able to comprehend creation. It was made for us,
therefore our minds must be able to understand how it all works.

I'm not sure you are correct, since the Taoist priests in the 6th and
7th century in China made some very good observations of nature that
led them to become the most technologically advanced culture in the
world at the time (the Chinese had gunpowder, moveable type printing
presses, paper, accurate clocks, and such things long before Christian
Europe had them). Since none of the Chinese "religions" (Taoism,
Buddhism, Confucianism) posit that there even are any gods, much less
that they created the universe specifically for us, they regarded the
unvierse as understandable simply because they took the time to try
and understand it. Europe, on the other hand, never had such a
tradition of directly observing the unvierse --- Aristotle and his
pals never got their hands dirty with real observations, preferring to
use "pure reason" to deduce things about the unvierse. One of the
favorite arguments of the Aristotleans was whether a fish added to a
bucket of water would raise the water level, since both are of the
same "element". They used all sorts of philosophical arguments to
debate the matter for centuries, until science came along, and someone
finally got a fish and a bucket of water. Once Christian power was
established in Europe, study of the Good Book became the accepted path
to all knwoeldge of the universe (along with the post-mortem
annexation of Aristotle and Galen into the Christian pantheon). If
one wanted to know how many teeth a hrose had, the "rational" way to
answer that was to read Galen or Aristotle, rather than finding a
horse.
Creation "scientists" still carry on this tradition, preferring to
find their "science informaiton" in Biblical verses rather than in the
real world.

I am not sure I'm getting their belief right, since it is so weird to me.

However, it is obvious that the universe is far more complicated than 18th
century man knew, and that we humans are far from central reasons for the
existence of the universe. IMHO, any rational mind must come to the
conclusion that it is not possible for us to completely understand the
universe. Our brains are simply not powerful enough. For example, there are
two things that we all know exist, but that none of us understands: time and
existence. No one understands what time is, and no one understands why
anything exists at all. What was there before the Big Bang? As soon as we
get to that question, we start to contemplate infinity, which no one gets, I
don't care what anyone claims.

I've already pointed out that there are huge areas of human experience
which science simply cannot consider, because they are not amenable to
the scientific method. Science works extremely well within its area
of competence. It fails utterly when outside that real of competence.

Therefore, the only one of your options, above, that makes any rational
sense at all, is Number 3, "We will never know". You say "Number 2 is the
only choice if one is looking for a scientific explanation, or in fact, any
explanation at all. If so, then these papers are suggested as the only
rational way to go". I disagree. Number 3 is the only one that makes any
sense. And IMO, it is the foundation of science. Science assumes that the
answers are not all known. That any theory can be challenged, if someone
presents reproducible evidence to the contrary. Science posits that there
will never be an end point, when we know everything, and all science will
stop.

We can go with Number 3, and still try to explain what we can get our minds
around. But there is no way we will every completely understand "why we are
what we are", as you put it above.

Heck, science can't even tell us whether murder is wrong. <shrug>
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.

User: "Kevin Aylward"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 12:20:33 AM

sb wrote:

{snip for brevity}

Thats what I said.

If so, then these
papers are suggested as the only rational way to go". I disagree.
Number 3 is the only one that makes any sense.

But this doesn't make any logical sense, with my "or any explanation at
all". If we *decide* to try and find a scientific explanation, there is
only one option. An explanation based on random processes.
#3 is the option of doing nothing.

And IMO, it is the
foundation of science. Science assumes that the answers are not all
known. That any theory can be challenged, if someone presents
reproducible evidence to the contrary. Science posits that there will
never be an end point, when we know everything, and all science will
stop.

We can go with Number 3,
and still try to explain what we can get our
minds around.

No. #3 is the option of doing nothing, by assumption. Thats it. DO
NOTHING. Thats why I pointed it out.

But there is no way we will every completely understand
"why we are what we are", as you put it above.

I agree that of course it seems very unlikely that we will understand
all of "why we are what we are", but thats no reason for taking #3 as a
main game plan, i.e. do nothing. If one selects #3, but than do, as you
suggest, try to explain "why we are what we are", we *are* back to #2.
#2 does not imply that that approach will solve all the problems, it
only an attempt.
However, I think I'll reword this to make it more clear what the intent
is. i.e., if one does *not* believe in a god, *and* one *desires* to
scientifically explain whatever one can, than an explanation that has
the basic tenant of randomness *must* be the only explanation possible.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.

User: "Lenny Flank"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 05:49:17 AM

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2G0qb.15$833.13@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

sb wrote:

{snip for brevity}

Thats what I said.

If so, then these
papers are suggested as the only rational way to go". I disagree.
Number 3 is the only one that makes any sense.

<snip>
That's all well and fine.
How exactly do you propose to "decide to try and find a scientific
explanation" in areas where the scientific method cannot be applied.
Please be specific.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.

User: "Kevin Aylward"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 09:27:35 AM

"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311050350.445c1de3@posting.google.com...

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in

message news:<2G0qb.15$833.13@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

sb wrote:

No because of this:

My front page

There are, essentially, only 3 options as to why we are what we

are.

1 We are the sole result of a non-random process, i.e. God did

it.

2 We are the sole result of random process.

3 We will never know.

That's it. That's your lot.

Number 2 is the only choice if one is looking for a scientific
explanation, or in fact, any explanation at all. If so, then

these

papers are suggested as the only rational way to go. Why?

To my knowledge, there are no other known algorithms, than the

one

described here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/replicatortheory.html, that

can

create order from randomness.

What *other* theory, that doesn't include god, and addresses

random

behaviour do you specifically have in mind?

{snip for brevity}

Thats what I said.

If so, then these
papers are suggested as the only rational way to go". I disagree.
Number 3 is the only one that makes any sense.

But this doesn't make any logical sense, with my "or any explanation

all". If we *decide* to try and find a scientific explanation, there

only one option. An explanation based on random processes.

<snip>

That's all well and fine.

How exactly do you propose to "decide to try and find a scientific
explanation" in areas where the scientific method cannot be applied.

Please be specific.

Give me a specific example of a "well defined" and *meaningful* human
problem that you suggest can't be answered by the scientific method.
For example "is murder right or wrong" is a cheat as it is a meaningless
question. It is too vague, and so has no answer, independent of any
method used. It depends too much on unspecified auxiliary information.
It also depends on your definition of murder, and to whom the
right/wrong is being applied to. There is no practical reason
whatsoever, to answer the question, as it is formulated. So, I agree
that this particular question can't be answered by science, however, it
is also one that can't be answered correctly by *any* method, so the
failure of science on this one is not particularly illuminating of the
validity of science on human questions in general.
This question is completely equivalent to the clearly scientific
question "is grass green". What type of grass are we referring to?. Is
it Autumn? Are you also suggesting that "is grass green" is not amenable
to the scientific method if we apply suitable scientific constraints to
formulate a more precise version of the problem?
So, once you give me a question that can actually answered by any method
of your choice, I might be able to address a scientific method method of
its solution.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.

User: "Lenny Flank"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 06:59:14 PM

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<PG8qb.560$833.537@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311050350.445c1de3@posting.google.com...

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in

message news:<2G0qb.15$833.13@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

sb wrote:

No because of this:

My front page

There are, essentially, only 3 options as to why we are what we

are.

1 We are the sole result of a non-random process, i.e. God did

it.

these

papers are suggested as the only rational way to go. Why?

To my knowledge, there are no other known algorithms, than the

one

described here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/replicatortheory.html, that

can

create order from randomness.

What *other* theory, that doesn't include god, and addresses

random

behaviour do you specifically have in mind?

{snip for brevity}

Thats what I said.

If so, then these
papers are suggested as the only rational way to go". I disagree.
Number 3 is the only one that makes any sense.

But this doesn't make any logical sense, with my "or any explanation

all". If we *decide* to try and find a scientific explanation, there

only one option. An explanation based on random processes.

<snip>

That's all well and fine.

How exactly do you propose to "decide to try and find a scientific
explanation" in areas where the scientific method cannot be applied.

Please be specific.

Give me a specific example of a "well defined" and *meaningful* human
problem that you suggest can't be answered by the scientific method.

That is indeed rather the problem when science attempts to study
subjective things, isn't it. . . . . .
YOU are the one claiming that the scientific method can be used to
determine if murder is wrong. So YOU tell US how you plan to set up
your scientific experiment and apply the scientific method to it.
And if you CAN'T, then . . . in what way do you suggest science CAN
study that question.

For example "is murder right or wrong" is a cheat as it is a meaningless
question.

Is it. So it makes no difference to you if murder is right or wrong?
I'm glad I don't live near you. <shrug> You don't own any guns, do
you . . ?
It is too vague, and so has no answer, independent of any

method used.

No *****, Sherlock.
That is true of ANY subjective matter or question. And that is
exactly why science cannot study ANY of them. Science can't tell us
if blondes are cuter than brunettes. Science can't tell us if
Republicans are better than Democrats. Science cannot tell us if
chocolate ice cream tastes better than vailla. Sciecne can't tell us
if we should keep the money in the wallet that we found on the
sidewalk. Indeed, the vast majority of all the decisions we make in
our lives -- any decision based on subjective opinion --- has nothing
at all whatsoever to do with science. Science can't answer those
question for us. Not even in principle.
To quote the topic of this thread, "science cannot provide all the
answers". Science can answer SCIENTIFIC questions. That's ALL it can
answer.
It depends too much on unspecified auxiliary information.

It also depends on your definition of murder, and to whom the
right/wrong is being applied to.

That's right. Whenever the words "it depends" show up, it's a pretty
safe bet that we are talking about a subjective matter, not an
objective one. And science cannot answer any subjective questions.
None of them. Whatever method you want to use to answer them, whether
it is "my conscience tells me" or "my preacher tells me" or "my mommy
and daddy tell me", you are not using science. Science can't answer
subjective questions.
That being my entire point.
There is no practical reason

whatsoever, to answer the question, as it is formulated.

Really. Then why are there practical laws against murder, and why do
we spend so much practical money on practical court time with
practical cops to lock up people who commit murder in practical jails,
if there is no practical reason to answer the question "is murder
wrong".
So, I agree

that this particular question can't be answered by science, however, it
is also one that can't be answered correctly by *any* method

DING DING DING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The chorus of angels bursts into song!!!!!!!!!!!
Haaaaaaaaaaa -leh -lu-yah!!!!!!!
Haaaaaaaaaaa -leh -lu-yah!!!!!!!
Ha-leh-lu-yah !!!!!!!
Ha-leh-lu-yah !!!!!!!!
Ha-lehh-luu-yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah !!!!!!!!!
FINALLY AT LAST you get my point.
It is all subjective. There is no way to arrive at a "right" answer,
other than what you subjectively decide is "right". And your
subjective decision doesn't mean diddley doo to anybody but you. You
have your opinions, I have mine. And there is no way at all to tell
which of them is "objectively right".
, so the

failure of science on this one is not particularly illuminating of the
validity of science on human questions in general.

OK. If you don't want to use science to tell me if murder is wrong,
why don't you use it to tell me if we should drop atomic bombs on Iran
or not.
Or isn't that a "human question" either . . . . . . .
Science can't answer ANY matter of ethics, morals, judgement, or
values. None. Not a one. Any "human question in general" that
contains the words "should" or "ought to" are, in principle,
unanswerable by science. Indeed, as you point out, they are
unanswerable PERIOD. Your subjective answer is no better (or worse)
than mine.

So, once you give me a question that can actually answered by any method
of your choice, I might be able to address a scientific method method of
its solution.

That's the whole POINT, dufus. NO SUBJECTIVE QUESTION CAN BE ANSWERED
OTHER THAN BY SUBJECTIVE OPINION, and there is NO WAY TO KNOW WHICH IF
ANY OF THOSE SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS IS "RIGHT" OR "WRONG". Not science,
not ethics, not religion, not philosophy, not ouija boards, nothing.
Nothing at all.
See how simple that is?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.

User: "G"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	04 Nov 2003 08:49:15 AM

Kevin Aylward wrote on Tue, 4 Nov 2003 06:47:03 -0500:

However, it also has the side benefit in allowing one to *
scientifically* develop techniques to pick up women.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/malefemale.html

For example, always make sure that you are seen with other women,
if you are trying to pick up a woman. This makes it all worthwhile,
imo.

Um, I hate to burst your enlightened bubble, but this is something I
learned long ago without benefit of the scientific method. Why spend
your time making up big words to explain something people already know
anyway?
G.
.

User: "Kevin Aylward"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	04 Nov 2003 10:16:54 AM

G wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote on Tue, 4 Nov 2003 06:47:03 -0500:

Um, I hate to burst your enlightened bubble, but this is something I
learned long ago without benefit of the scientific method.

Unfortunately we are not all as astute as this:-)

Why spend
your time making up big words to explain something people already know
anyway?

Because one might be able to discover new techniques that may have been
missed. It also save the cost of those "How to pick up a women" books.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 01:21:11 AM

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:47:03 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

There are, essentially, only 3 options as to why we are what we are.

1 We are the sole result of a non-random process, i.e. God did it.

2 We are the sole result of random process.

3 We will never know.

That's it. That's your lot.

You missed the correct answer, namely that we are the result of a
combination of random and non-random processes.

To my knowledge, there are no other known algorithms, than the one
described here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/replicatortheory.html, that can
create order from randomness.

Gravity can do it, if you want to consider such a simple thing an
algorithm.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "Kevin Aylward"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 04:20:43 AM

"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.05.07.22.26.569305@mail.utexas.edu...

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:47:03 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

You missed the correct answer, namely that we are the result of a
combination of random and non-random processes.

Don't think so, see below.

To my knowledge, there are no other known algorithms, than the one
described here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/replicatortheory.html, that can
create order from randomness.

Gravity can do it, if you want to consider such a simple thing an
algorithm.

First, the motions predicted by celestial mechanics are generally,
ultimately chaotic, do they do the opposite, it turns order into chaos.
Second, not so, according to what is actually known about provisional
quantum gravity. Quantum Qravity explains the attraction of gravity by
the momentum exchange of spin 2 bosons, i.e gravitons. Attractive
exchange forces, *necessarily* involve the quantum uncertainty relation
to explain how momentum has a probability of pointing in the other
direction. So, gravity is indeed the result of a random process. Note
that QG, results in exactly the same equations as Einstein's field
equations of General Relativity.

And I have an other idea on this as well:-)
It has taken a bit of a set back, what with the confirmation of dark
matter accelerating the expansion of the universe. However, there are
some suggestions, that even with this fact, the universe might collapse
again.
If the universe was a continuing big bang big crunch, the laws of
physics could be a result of random generation and selection as well.
After such cycle as the laws allowed for us to exist. We did.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.

User: "Bob White"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 10:56:27 AM

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h54qb.62$833.46@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

...
First, the motions predicted by celestial mechanics are generally,
ultimately chaotic ...

On the contrary, the outstanding feature of the universe appears to be that
it is a rather orderly, predictable place due to the fact that all the
different elements react to proximity or contact with one another in regular
(lawful) ways, don't you agree? If not, and everything is ultimately
chaotic, then what are the sciences all about?
.

User: "Kevin Aylward"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 12:20:17 PM

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SZ9qb.111843$HS4.967010@attbi_s01...

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in

message

news:h54qb.62$833.46@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

...
First, the motions predicted by celestial mechanics are generally,
ultimately chaotic ...

On the contrary, the outstanding feature of the universe appears to be

that

it is a rather orderly, predictable place due to the fact that all the
different elements react to proximity or contact with one another in

regular

(lawful) ways, don't you agree? If not, and everything is ultimately
chaotic, then what are the sciences all about?

On the contrary, you appear to know little about this subject. It is
well accepted that the equations of celestial mechanics or non-linear
complicated, many-body differential equations that exhibit chaos,
although its over the millions of years time scale.
I tried "chaos planetary motion" in google and got 16000 hits
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.

User: "Bob White"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 12:52:43 PM

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Tcbqb.964$833.235@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SZ9qb.111843$HS4.967010@attbi_s01...

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in

message

news:h54qb.62$833.46@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

...
First, the motions predicted by celestial mechanics are generally,
ultimately chaotic ...

On the contrary, the outstanding feature of the universe appears to be

that

it is a rather orderly, predictable place due to the fact that all the
different elements react to proximity or contact with one another in

regular

(lawful) ways, don't you agree? If not, and everything is ultimately
chaotic, then what are the sciences all about?

Try again, this time type in "astrophysics" (a branch of astronomy) the
study of the lawful regularities in the behavior, physical properties, and
dynamic processes of celestial objects and phenomena.
In particular, have a look at the laws (observed regularities of motion)
pointed out by Kepler, Newton, etc.
.

User: "Bob White"
Title: Re: the scientific method of investigation	06 Nov 2003 11:30:58 AM

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Tcbqb.964$833.235@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SZ9qb.111843$HS4.967010@attbi_s01...

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in

message

news:h54qb.62$833.46@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

...
First, the motions predicted by celestial mechanics are generally,
ultimately chaotic ...

On the contrary, the outstanding feature of the universe appears to be

that

it is a rather orderly, predictable place due to the fact that all the
different elements react to proximity or contact with one another in

regular

(lawful) ways, don't you agree? If not, and everything is ultimately
chaotic, then what are the sciences all about?

You are mistaken, it is precisely that, the millions-of-years time scale
that reveals the predictable lawful order in what appears at first glance to
be chaotic perturbations in the motions of multi-body systems. As the number
of iterates of a function, a function involving what at first appears to be
chaotic complexity, as the number of iterates grows ever larger without
bound (goes toward infinity, is the figure of speech), the true lawful,
orderly, predictableness of it becomes evident. See the work of Gaston
Maurice Julia and Benoit Mandelbrot.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/julia/julia.html
The universe is undeniably lawful, orderly, and predictable for the most
part, except for some apparently unpredictable happenings at the sub-atomic
level we can't explain (though the string theorists are working like beavers
on that little problem).

I tried "chaos planetary motion" in google and got 16000 hits

Hits on google don't prove anything, knucklehead. I tried 'knucklehead kevin
aylward" and got 16,200 hits. (You aren't REALLY a knucklehead are you, Kev?
Isn't that just a little term of endearment that I use in a loving
older-brotherly kind of way? 8^) )
I tried "lawful orderly universe" and got 21,800 hits. Mine's bigger than
yours. You lose. 8^)
Seriously, you evaded my question. If the universe is not characterized by
orderly, predictable happenings due to the fact that all the different
elements react to proximity or contact with one another in regular (lawful)
ways, what are the sciences all about? The goal of science (knowledge) is to
demonstrate knowledge of the nature of things, knowledge of the nature of
the universe, through the ability to control and/or predict happenings. For
example, mix fuel and air, compress it with a cylinder in a combustion
chamber, apply a spark of heat, and reliably, the mixture will heat up,
expand, and drive the piston down to where it was before the cycle started.
This happening is so predictable that we have used it to replace horses to
power our transportation. Such prediction and control of events would not be
possible if the universe were not characterized by lawful, orderly,
predictable happenings. Get the picture?
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	05 Nov 2003 12:36:31 PM

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:20:17 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SZ9qb.111843$HS4.967010@attbi_s01...

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in

message

news:h54qb.62$833.46@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

...
First, the motions predicted by celestial mechanics are generally,
ultimately chaotic ...

On the contrary, the outstanding feature of the universe appears to be
that it is a rather orderly, predictable place due to the fact that all
the different elements react to proximity or contact with one another
in regular (lawful) ways, don't you agree? If not, and everything is
ultimately chaotic, then what are the sciences all about?

The big problem (for you) is that have switched the argument from "random
vs. non-random" to "chaos exists".
Sure, chaos exists. It's also irrelevant to your original argument.
I stand by my claims that (a) your list of three choices was incomplete,
and (b) gravity can create order from randomness.
The existence of chaotic motions has no bearing on either of those claims.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "Kevin Aylward"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	06 Nov 2003 03:43:24 AM

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:20:17 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SZ9qb.111843$HS4.967010@attbi_s01...

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in

message

news:h54qb.62$833.46@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

...
First, the motions predicted by celestial mechanics are generally,
ultimately chaotic ...

On the contrary, the outstanding feature of the universe appears to
be that it is a rather orderly, predictable place due to the fact
that all the different elements react to proximity or contact with
one another in regular (lawful) ways, don't you agree? If not, and
everything is ultimately chaotic, then what are the sciences all
about?

The big problem (for you) is that have switched the argument from
"random vs. non-random" to "chaos exists".

Sure, chaos exists. It's also irrelevant to your original argument.

Maybe I misunderstood your point. I have already explained that quantum
mechanics explicitly explains gravity by use of the hiesenburg
uncertainty principle in graviton momentum exchange, therefore if
gravity is a *source* of traits, it must be random.

I stand by my claims that (a) your list of three choices was
incomplete,

No. You misunderstood completely what the evolution algorithm is about.
The list is indeed complete. It doesn't care whether gravity is one
particular selection method.

and (b) gravity can create order from randomness.

You probably don't understand what the evolution issue is, or maybe I
misunderstood your statement.
The idea that the environment creates order out of randomness is not an
issue. That's the *fundamental* tenet of evolutionary theory, that is,
that randomly generated traits are selected, usually, *non randomly* by
the environment. That is, it is a given, that selection process are
decidedly non random.
The evolutionary axioms are, random generation of traits, replication of
such traits and selection of such traits. It doesn't care what the
specific mechanisms are, only that such algorithm is used. The fact that
gravity, as an environmental variable, may create order, is not in
contradiction to the claim of no other algorithms being known. It is
simple one method of environmental selection.
What other actual *algorithm* do you have in mind?
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
.

User: "Mark Richardson"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 07:02:40 PM

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:45:27 +0000 (UTC),

(Lenny Flank)
wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4Hbpb.1772$Yt4.395@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
In

general, the situation is far too complicated to extract all the pros
and cons for increasing Replictor numbers. However, *some* of them can
be explained, pretty easily. For instance, if your girlfriend has big
tits, this is clearly of value in feeding babies, hence better chance
of surviving and replicating that trait into generations of offspring.

Urban myth.
There is no general correlation between the size of a woman's breasts
and her milk production.
The presence of some body fat *is* helpful for the sustained
production of milk, and a very skinny woman may have problems
producing.
A severely malnourished (anorexic) woman would have definite problems
producing milk.

Such big tits would make her more attractive.

That is probably the real reason that human females have big breasts -
(compared to other great apes like the chimpanzee) sexual signaling -
the equivalent of a monkeys red bottom or a peacocks tail.

Says you. <shrug> I happen to like small tits, myself.

Yes. We are all individuals.
And if the great majority of men felt like you, women's breasts would
tend to get smaller over many generations - their milk production
would remain unaffected (unless it changed for some other reason).
"Sexual selection" is one very powerful factor in evolution.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Glenn"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 07:41:37 PM

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:rj9bqvk4tqp1lohp50uqscan1hq4q37jfb@4ax.com...
snip

And if the great majority of men felt like you, women's breasts would
tend to get smaller over many generations - their milk production
would remain unaffected (unless it changed for some other reason).

"Sexual selection" is one very powerful factor in evolution.

And the reason for why women's breasts are huge is because
of men like you.
Good GOD. Excuse my language.
.

User: "Lenny Flank"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	03 Nov 2003 07:34:45 AM

"Glenn" <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote in message news:<eoipb.227$CK6.42364@news.uswest.net>...

"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:rj9bqvk4tqp1lohp50uqscan1hq4q37jfb@4ax.com...
snip

And the reason for why women's breasts are huge is because
of men like you.

Good GOD. Excuse my language.

Uh, didn't the Intelligent Designer design big tits? Just like it
designed bubonic plague, flesh-eating bacteria, and tapeworms?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 07:53:24 AM

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Lenny Flank wrote:

[snip]

Unless, of course, you can come up
with a way to use the scientific method to test the statement "murder
is wrong".

Yes, you can. Illustrated, here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html, with full support at
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Human Wrong" might, arguable, be *defined* as that trait that would
drive the human race to extinction, if continued unchecked.

Sure, if you redefine the term you can apply it differently than
it has been applied. Otherwise read Hume on this. Right and
Wrong, moral judgement, does not appear from an analysis of the
world. Orthodox Jews think it is wrong to eat unclean foods, how
does that fit your "Human Wrong" above? I don't mean what
selective value can you find in that rule. We can all come up
with just-so stories, and there may even be some aspect that has
some selective value (group identification and cohesion, for
example). How does that Jewish notion of right come from your
definition of morality?
[snip]
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 08:35:21 AM

Matt Silberstein wrote:

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Lenny Flank wrote:

[snip]

Unless, of course, you can come up
with a way to use the scientific method to test the statement "murder
is wrong".

Why should it?
Are we supposed to justify some theist's morals based on our
assumptions? I think not. They have their assumptions and we have ours.
We define right and wrong in terms of human imperatives. Of course
morality is a human affair. Humans are the moral agents in question.
Some alien race of moral agents might have an entirely different set of
biological and social imperatives that would cause it to derive an
entirely different set of rules of "proper" behavior. So what? We're not
aliens. It doesn't make our choices wrong for us.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.

User: "Lenny Flank"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 03:01:47 PM

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqa5iuiubo8t5c@news.supernews.com>...

Matt Silberstein wrote:

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Lenny Flank wrote:

[snip]

Unless, of course, you can come up
with a way to use the scientific method to test the statement "murder
is wrong".

Why should it?

Are we supposed to justify some theist's morals based on our
assumptions? I think not. They have their assumptions and we have ours.
We define right and wrong in terms of human imperatives. Of course
morality is a human affair. Humans are the moral agents in question.

Some alien race of moral agents might have an entirely different set of
biological and social imperatives that would cause it to derive an
entirely different set of rules of "proper" behavior. So what? We're not
aliens. It doesn't make our choices wrong for us.

I'm not asking what makes "our" choices right or wrong for "us". I am
asking what makes YOUR choices right or wrong for ME.
You have your moral/ethical opinions. I have mine. What makes yours
better (or worse) than mine or anyone else's. Why is "I think this is
morally wrong because my conscience tells me so" more valid than "I
think this is morally wrong because my religion says so" or "I think
this is morally wrong because my mommy says so".
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 05:16:17 PM

Lenny Flank wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vqa5iuiubo8t5c@news.supernews.com>...

Matt Silberstein wrote:

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Lenny Flank wrote:

[snip]

Unless, of course, you can come up
with a way to use the scientific method to test the statement "murder
is wrong".

Why should it?

Are we supposed to justify some theist's morals based on our
assumptions? I think not. They have their assumptions and we have ours.
We define right and wrong in terms of human imperatives. Of course
morality is a human affair. Humans are the moral agents in question.

Some alien race of moral agents might have an entirely different set of
biological and social imperatives that would cause it to derive an
entirely different set of rules of "proper" behavior. So what? We're not
aliens. It doesn't make our choices wrong for us.

I'm not asking what makes "our" choices right or wrong for "us". I am
asking what makes YOUR choices right or wrong for ME.

Nothing.

You have your moral/ethical opinions. I have mine. What makes yours
better (or worse) than mine or anyone else's.

Nothing. My choices are about me, they're in response to the factors
that affect my life, not yours. YOU decide what's right for you.
That doesn't mean that either of us can make decisions without any
consideration of others' choices. Of course if you decide that stealing
from me is right, then I might have something to say about it. That's
not me choosing for you, you're still morally free to step into the path
of my bullets or not, as YOU choose.

Why is "I think this is
morally wrong because my conscience tells me so" more valid than "I
think this is morally wrong because my religion says so" or "I think
this is morally wrong because my mommy says so".

They're not. Wasn't that easy?
Nothing gives YOU the right to make choices for ME. Or vice versa.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.

User: "Kevin Aylward"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 09:24:25 AM

Matt Silberstein wrote:

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Lenny Flank wrote:

[snip]

Unless, of course, you can come up
with a way to use the scientific method to test the statement
"murder is wrong".

Yes, you can. Illustrated, here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html, with full support
at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Human Wrong" might, arguable, be *defined* as that trait that would
drive the human race to extinction, if continued unchecked.

Sure, if you redefine the term you can apply it differently than
it has been applied.

It can be very useful to redefine things. It allows things to actually
get done.

Otherwise read Hume on this. Right and
Wrong, moral judgement, does not appear from an analysis of the
world.

It does now. We have moved on from that limited view point. This was
before they knew or understood about evoluton and General Replicator
Theory, so their views are not necessarily that significant anymore.

Orthodox Jews think it is wrong to eat unclean foods, how
does that fit your "Human Wrong" above?

It doesn't, and doesn't need to. I distinguish between "moral meme
traits", that is traits that have evolved to maximise replication
numbers of human genes, and other "non moral meme traits", that just
happen to exist and replicate because they are memes, with no human
reason for them to exist. That is I make a definition.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html
The definition allows one to make better debates on the issues. For
example, if we can identify that a meme has no real rational impact on
human survivability, we can might well declare it to be a non issue, as
far as right or wrong for the human race is concerned.

I don't mean what
selective value can you find in that rule. We can all come up
with just-so stories, and there may even be some aspect that has
some selective value (group identification and cohesion, for
example). How does that Jewish notion of right come from your
definition of morality?

Again, it doesn't, because I don't define all memes as moral memes. This
Jewish example is not a moral by my definiton. You might want to check
out te full arguments here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 01:47:29 PM

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Lenny Flank wrote:

[snip]

Unless, of course, you can come up
with a way to use the scientific method to test the statement
"murder is wrong".

Yes, you can. Illustrated, here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html, with full support
at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Human Wrong" might, arguable, be *defined* as that trait that would
drive the human race to extinction, if continued unchecked.

Sure, if you redefine the term you can apply it differently than
it has been applied.

It can be very useful to redefine things. It allows things to actually
get done.

Or avoid issues. Just make sure that you don't end up
equivocating.

Otherwise read Hume on this. Right and
Wrong, moral judgement, does not appear from an analysis of the
world.

It does now. We have moved on from that limited view point.

Then this is not simply re-definition, you have some great new
insight. You know the real source of Right and Wrong, the real
meanings.

This was
before they knew or understood about evoluton and General Replicator
Theory, so their views are not necessarily that significant anymore.

Yeah, people did not understand the notion of lineages continuing
or not before Darwin. Not.

Orthodox Jews think it is wrong to eat unclean foods, how
does that fit your "Human Wrong" above?

It doesn't, and doesn't need to.

They consider it moral. I gather that your grand understanding of
morality does not, in fact, explain what other people consider
morality.

I distinguish between "moral meme
traits", that is traits that have evolved to maximise replication
numbers of human genes, and other "non moral meme traits", that just
happen to exist and replicate because they are memes, with no human
reason for them to exist. That is I make a definition.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html

So, for you, morality is maximizing the success of your progeny.
Morality and reproductive success is the same thing.

The definition allows one to make better debates on the issues.

If "better" means agrees with you, perhaps. Since the
"definition" excludes much of what people consider moral behavior
I find it less than useful. You seem to confuse re-defining a
term and discovering something.

For
example, if we can identify that a meme has no real rational impact on
human survivability, we can might well declare it to be a non issue, as
far as right or wrong for the human race is concerned.

Right and Wrong *by your personal definition*. Sure since you
defined it that way. The actual problem does not go away.

Just to make it clear you are redefining the word morality to
mean contributes to reproductive success. BFD.
.

User: "Kevin Aylward"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 02:37:01 PM

Matt Silberstein wrote:

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Otherwise read Hume on this. Right and
Wrong, moral judgement, does not appear from an analysis of the
world.

It does now. We have moved on from that limited view point.

Then this is not simply re-definition, you have some great new
insight. You know the real source of Right and Wrong, the real
meanings.

I do have a new insight, however, it is not about whether a moral is
right or wrong, only what a moral actually is.

This was
before they knew or understood about evoluton and General Replicator
Theory, so their views are not necessarily that significant anymore.

Yeah, people did not understand the notion of lineages continuing
or not before Darwin. Not.

That is not what I am referring to. Darwin knew nothing of DNA. Before
Dawkins, the idea of a selfish replicator did not really crop up. The
concept of memes did not exist. Memes are a new powerful technique to
understand human behaviour.

Orthodox Jews think it is wrong to eat unclean foods, how
does that fit your "Human Wrong" above?

It doesn't, and doesn't need to.

They consider it moral. I gather that your grand understanding of
morality does not, in fact, explain what other people consider
morality.

Many non gene maximising "codes of conducts" can be explained by meme
theory, i.e. general replicator theory in certain ways. You might whaat
to have a look at "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore,
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

So, for you, morality is maximizing the success of your progeny.
Morality and reproductive success is the same thing.

No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.
This is getting bloody silly. Its the same old f'ing story. Science
points out how things *are*, and ignorant dudes start implying that
Science is having an opinion on whether it *should* be that way.
Go and read the f'ing thing again, and tell me exactly where I said
*anything* of the sort. I state facts. That's it. well, maybe an opinion
or two.

The definition allows one to make better debates on the issues.

If "better" means agrees with you, perhaps.

Better means to analyse the issues better.

Since the
"definition" excludes much of what people consider moral behavior
I find it less than useful.

I am sure some may feel that way. The point of the definition is to
separate morals that have/had had a real physical purpose, IRRESPECTIVE
OF WEATHER OR NOT I AGREE WITH THAT PURPOSE, from those "morals" that
never or don't serve a physical purpose.

You seem to confuse re-defining a
term and discovering something.

No. The observation that many morals serve an evolutionary purpose, i.e.
maximise the numbers of individuals is useful.

For
example, if we can identify that a meme has no real rational impact
on human survivability, we can might well declare it to be a non
issue, as far as right or wrong for the human race is concerned.

Right and Wrong *by your personal definition*.

What part of "I HAVE NOT DEFINED WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG" to you *STILL*
not understand?
Sure since you

defined it that way. The actual problem does not go away.

I agree, the issue concerning morals, as defined by me does not go away
for many of them. However, the other codes of conduct that do not
satisfy my definition *may* go away. i.e. if there is no rational reason
at all to defend such "morals", they can be dispensed with. The ones
that don't go away can be debated by OTHER PEOPLE OTHER THAN ME AS I
DONT CARE WHETHER THEY ARE WRONG OR RIGHT AND AM MAKING NO COMMENT ON
THEM.
Secondly, some of "my" "morals" clearly show that some can be dispensed
with, e.g. prostitution, again, this serves no real purpose today, imo.

Just to make it clear you are redefining the word morality to
mean contributes to reproductive success. BFD.

Science needs exact definitions in order to make accurate deductions.
The fact that this definition of "morals" does not include what some may
call a "moral" is not relevant. It just means that this bit of science
has nothing to say about them. I am explaining where some "morals"
principally arise from. That's it. With a bit more work in meme theory,
I might be able to explain some of the other ones as well. You have to
walk before you can run. Meme theory is pretty new. Not much has been
done on it.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'	02 Nov 2003 03:21:48 PM

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

In talk.origins I read this message from "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk>:

Otherwise read Hume on this. Right and
Wrong, moral judgement, does not appear from an analysis of the
world.

It does now. We have moved on from that limited view point.

Then this is not simply re-definition, you have some great new
insight. You know the real source of Right and Wrong, the real
meanings.

I do have a new insight, however, it is not about whether a moral is
right or wrong, only what a moral actually is.

You have not done anything, AFAICT, to communicate this insight.
Instead you have chosen to re-define the word. If you want to
show us was morality, with the standard definition, is then
please do so. You might want to show some familiarity with the
works of those who have already published on this topic.