oldest theory disproved(ot but great)

[Desdichado]

OK, now this is starting to sound like a religious debate.

 

[Kugar]

OK, now this is starting to sound like a religious debate.

I didn't know that alsih2o's feelings on Monkeypoop ran that deep.

 

[Dr. Harry]

Hi. I don't mean to get drawn into a religious debate here, but I feel I should address a few things.

Of course many scientists have beliefs outside of their lab. However, this does not change the fact that Naturalism is indeed a faith-based belief. There is no way to prove that Naturalism, or the idea that one can understand the universe in natural terms, without using naturalism itself as proof. This is circular reasoning.

I don't feel that this is a religious debate, primarily because I am not speaking of ontological naturalism the belief system(and I do not think that I should speak of ontological naturalism as a philosophical system, as I do not hold to it myself) , but the methodological naturalism of the lab. I can measure, in a lab, whether one rock formation is older than another, but I cannot "measure" if one scupture is better than another. Methodological naturalism is nothing more than saying "What can be studied of natural causes from natural effects can be studied scientifically. Methodological naturalism, as opposed to ontological naturalism (naturalism, the philosophy) does not say that that which cannot be studied naturallistically does not exist, but merely that it ain't science.

That's why (since this thread has been labeled OT from the start) I've gone down this path in the thread. Since religious and political beliefs are, by the definition above, not scientific, by restricting my discussion to scientifically addressable issues and not addressing how some religious/political beliefs might be affected by scientific observations, I avoid breaking ENWorld rules.

In fact, I feel confident that no one could sucessfully guess my religious opinions/affiliation from my ENWorld post. As the rest of your post is founded firmly on a premise that I feel is flawed at its base, I did not address it specifically.

Oh, and I did have a way to include monkey poop in this discussion, but I dropped it for taste reasons.

 

[Celebrim]

Dr. Harry: I sometimes wonder whether people are arguing with me or some bugaboo of an argument that they once had with someone else.

"I can measure, in a lab, whether one rock formation is older than another..."

Can you? Or can you only state with this degree of certainty based on the information you have, this is true? Do you hold the opinion as a scientist that information is conserved? Is it possible from the present state of the universe to correctly deduce the state of the universe a Plank length moment of time (assuming time is in fact quantized, which it may not be) before that, and a Plank length moment of time before that, and so forth back to the beginning of the Universe?

It is in fact possible that some things are unknowable?

"What can be studied of natural causes from natural effects can be studied scientifically."

Fine, but what it does not assure you of is your ability to obtain a conclusion, and I was merely pointing out that in my opinion a scientist is amiss in making a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. If you do so, you are moving outside the realms of methodological naturalism, and into the realms of ontological naturalism. A scientist that asserts the belief that at some time in the future he will have proof of the natural origin of life is making a philosophical statement. Such a statement doesn't bother me philosophically in the slightest and he may well be right, but it (as you put it) 'ain't science'.

"1) the natural world is understandable in natural terms and (2) it is possible for human beings to understand those processes"

I'm not at all arguing against '1', nor am I arguing abandoning the quest, but I think that it is increasingly likily that '2' is in question if you are interpreting to mean 'everything is knowable'. And even if you aren't, point two does not gaurantee that everything is knowable at this particular time.

I'll leave your blanket dismissal of information theory and the like for some other time.

 

[coyote6]

So, what are the odds of (some number) of monkeys at (some number) of computers/typewriters/word processors typing "Thread closed"? Getting larger all the time?

To go back to the off-topic topic for a moment, I thought the actual text of what they typed was interesting; I'd like to see some time-related info, though. Did they type all those s's in one long string, or were there breaks? If there were breaks, why did the monkeys go back to typing 's'? What were those monkeys thinking, between the bouts of pooflinging?

PS: if they had been ninja monkeys, they'd have gotten at least a few Shakespearean plays out, plus a few sonnets.

Then they would have flipped out and killed the guys that set up the experiment, of course.

 

[Larry Fitz]

A Valiant Effort to Move This On-Topic

So in my campaign world, evolution does not exist. Of course neither does Shakespeare nor Pepsi. Monkey poop does exist, but it's really played down, if you know what I mean (Sorry AlSiH2O).

 

[Dr. Harry]

Dr. Harry: I sometimes wonder whether people are arguing with me or some bugaboo of an argument that they once had with someone else.

?

"I can measure, in a lab, whether one rock formation is older than another..."

Can you? Or can you only state with this degree of certainty based on the information you have, this is true?

I can state that one rock formation shows a different age than another based upon the tested and established principles that the dating method rests upon. Please see the link below, which provides an excellent explantion of radiometric dating.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Are you actually demanding absolute answers? That something must be "true" before we can say that we know, or can measure something?

Do you hold the opinion as a scientist that information is conserved?

Certainly not. Please see discussion in:

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/replynfl.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

Is it possible from the present state of the universe to correctly deduce the state of the universe a Plank length moment of time (assuming time is in fact quantized, which it may not be) before that, and a Plank length moment of time before that, and so forth back to the beginning of the Universe?

In a deterministic fashion? I would say "No." Random events on the subatomic level makes this impossible.

It is in fact possible that some things are unknowable?

It is possible, but I am certainly not going to say that "thing x is unknowable", thus closing off an avenue of research. I doubt there is anything natural that is in principle unknowable simply because of our success rate over the last couple of hundred years of expanding our knowledge.

... in my opinion a scientist is amiss in making a conclusion based on the evidence at hand.

Wow. I had to reread this one twice. Science is the activity of making conclusions based on the evidence at hand, and then testing those conclusions. Are there ever any final conclusions?

No, because science doesn't work that way; but we do have a number of theories (that is, systems of understandings) that have withstood so much scrutiny that we may speak of them with great confidence.

Wow. So we're allowed to look at the world, but not to try and explain it.

If you do so, you are moving outside the realms of methodological naturalism, and into the realms of ontological naturalism.

If and only if it taken "outside the lab". "inside" the lab, it is allowed and required.

"1) the natural world is understandable in natural terms and (2) it is possible for human beings to understand those processes"

I'm not at all arguing against '1', nor am I arguing abandoning the quest, but I think that it is increasingly likily that '2' is in question if you are interpreting to mean 'everything is knowable'. And even if you aren't, point two does not gaurantee that everything is knowable at this particular time.

To abandon point 2 as a working basis is to set some areas aside as "we aren't allowed to study this, because it has been declared unknowable." I would say such a statement is actively morally wrong.

I fail to see how your second point is germane to anything that has appeared in this thread. We can speak of what we know without having to know everything.

I'll leave your blanket dismissal of information theory and the like for some other time.

I have provided a number of sources in support what I have said (especially in regard to the claims as far as the "conservation of information" goes), as is proper practice. I recommend this practice to you.

 

[caudor]

Re: A Valiant Effort to Move This On-Topic

So in my campaign world, evolution does not exist. Of course neither does Shakespeare nor Pepsi. Monkey poop does exist, but it's really played down, if you know what I mean (Sorry AlSiH2O).

One could always make a monkey poop demigod I bet AlSiH20, with his imagination, could devise a very interesting one

 

[Dr. Harry]

Re: A Valiant Effort to Move This On-Topic

So in my campaign world, evolution does not exist. Of course neither does Shakespeare nor Pepsi. Monkey poop does exist, but it's really played down, if you know what I mean (Sorry AlSiH2O).

In my world, the powers were kept from the world as it developed naturally, so I can use evolutionary explanations.

This means that Humanity is the only "evolved" race on my world, the other showing up when the "gods" got involved. Oh, those pesky gods.

Monkey poop exists, but not on the continent where the players start out, so I haven't had to find d20 stats for it, yet.

 

[Azlan]

this one is going downhill fast.

The original topic was about a gazillion monkies with a gazillion typewriters being able to hammer out a work of Shakespeare within the timespan of a gazillion years. With such a harebrained premise, from such a ludicrous standpoint, what can be considered "downhill"?

monkeypoop!!! it is all about the monkey poop!

It sure is.