woolley Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 The point I was attempting to make, that apparently was missed, is quite simple. If you state that you have no clue as to what happened, how can you say that you're positive about anything? "I don't know what the answer is, but based upon this evidence or that, I think we evolved from H. erectus."; is a much more reasonable argument. Let's take an unsolved murder. It's quite possible that the police would have no clue as to who the perpetrator was, while, at the same time, excluding the possibility that the husband was murdered by the wife. I don't think that it's necessarily more reasonable to express contingent certainty than general doubt.
Dan Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 Let's take an unsolved murder. It's quite possible that the police would have no clue as to who the perpetrator was, while, at the same time, excluding the possibility that the husband was murdered by the wife. I don't think that it's necessarily more reasonable to express contingent certainty than general doubt. If you're certain that husband wasn't the murderer than you have some clue about who the perpetrator was. You had to rule out the husband based on some reasoning, correct? You've deduced based upon (for example) time of death, cause of death, location of death, etc. that the husband wasn't the perp. Hence, you can say that the perp was available at a certain time, able to inflict certain types of wounds, had access to the scene of the crime, etc. Consequently, you would indeed have a clue about the perpetrator and would not make the the initial statement. Back to the argument at hand, to say your positive about anything as complex and as lacking in thorough data as human evolutionary origins is not wise, especially when prefaced by a self-proclaimed statement that you have no clue about the subject. That's all I was implying.
woolley Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 If you're certain that husband wasn't the murderer than you have some clue about who the perpetrator was. You had to rule out the husband based on some reasoning, correct? You've deduced based upon (for example) time of death, cause of death, location of death, etc. that the husband wasn't the perp. Hence, you can say that the perp was available at a certain time, able to inflict certain types of wounds, had access to the scene of the crime, etc. Consequently, you would indeed have a clue about the perpetrator and would not make the the initial statement. Back to the argument at hand, to say your positive about anything as complex and as lacking in thorough data as human evolutionary origins is not wise, especially when prefaced by a self-proclaimed statement that you have no clue about the subject. That's all I was implying. I yield, I guess. Of all the unsolved murders in the history of the world I'd reckon many a detective would very likely say "I have no clue" when it comes to the perp, even though they do in fact have "clues" as to who the perp is. Like, they have a clue who the murderer is because they can't exclude 33,988 persons in the general vicinity who may not have an alibi, but that's effectively being clueless, and this is semantics. Personally, I'm opposed to dogmatism when it comes to this topic. I also don't think the poster was "clueless" in the most literal sense, but he can speak for himself. Also, I agree you should definitely have reasons for excluding possibilities. With this particular topic, reasons are not objectively reasonable because it really doesn't matter what any of us thinks about whatever the objective reality of the unobserved and untestable/non-repeatable past is, reason being contingent on human thought and not existing independent of that. Unless it does, in which case...but that's a whole other thing.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Is there anything wrong with the theory of both God and evolution? I can say that I am on the side of the fence that believes in a higher power but that as humans we may never understand what that higher power is. There are different names for it, God or Karma being the most commonly used but when we try to define it we are taking power from it's actual being. I'm not looking for an argument, just a some good insight on what others think. Here are a couple of videos that I find very interesting when talking about the combo of Science and God: What are your thoughts?
Recommended Posts