GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Yes, that's what I meant, "like you were saying, there is no absolute proof". Maybe I didn't phrase myself correctly, as usual [/QUOTE]
I doubt it. Like I said previously, I've been drinking a bit; I probably just misread what you said, or took it the wrong way. You were just backing up my off-handed comment about there not being any actual "proof" that this was, without a doubt, the way humans contracted HIV (by the way, I edited that post in order to include that very comment about "absolute proof," just to be sure I didn't look like I thought such a thing existed, and now it appears to have worked against us :laugh: ).

Oh sorry Chimera, when I read your original post to me I somehow didn't see the "I" in front of the "read". Anyhow, its not that rational structures don't exist, its that they don't exist naturally, they're byproducts of human perspective, so it doesn't matter that Kant used a rational structure, he did it to illustrate the instability and non-objectiveness of all rational structures.

What have you read by Kant? Reason can't take us closer to objective reality because reason itself is shaped by our perceptions this was the significance he placed on the Copernican Revolution. Also positivism is nothing Kant wouldn't have been familiar with although he wouldn't have recognized it by that name. Positivism was just a reaffirmation of empiricist organized rationality which does nothing to combat Kant's philosophy except to say "NO you're wrong" like a belligerent child. And as for his relevance to postmodernism, surely you can see what a short step it is from saying that humanity imposes interpretation (Kant would probably say significance) on reality to saying that the individual alone imposes said interpretation.

As I stated above, I have read "Critique of Pure Reason" long ago, and some secondary textbooks when I studied philosophy.

Stanford has a good site called Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The link below is a summary of Kant's views on philosophy of science:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/

I quote from the Stanford site:

The feature of Kant's conception of natural science proper that is most immediately striking is how restrictive it is. It requires that cognition (i) be systematically ordered (ii) according to rational principles and (iii) be known a priori with apodictic certainty, i.e., with "consciousness of their necessity" (4:468). Because properly scientific cognition must satisfy these strict conditions, it requires "a pure part on which the apodictic certainty that reason seeks can be based" (4:469). But since Kant identifies pure rational cognition that is generated from concepts with metaphysics, it follows that science proper requires a metaphysics of nature. He then specifies that such a metaphysics of nature could consist in either a "transcendental part," which discusses the laws that make possible the concept of a nature in general — "even without relation to any determinate object of experience" (4:469) — or a "special metaphysical" part, which concerns a "particular nature of this or that kind of things" for which an empirical concept is given.

Kant's very conception of natural science proper thus immediately gives rise to several systematically important questions. First, if the "transcendental part" of the metaphysics of nature can be identified with the results of the Critique of Pure Reason, then the Metaphysical Foundations is a work in special metaphysics. But what exactly is a special metaphysics? In particular, what particular natures or kinds of things could be its object? And how precisely can an empirical concept of such things be given without compromising the necessity required of the pure part of natural science? Second, how is the special metaphysics provided by the Metaphysical Foundations supposed to be related to the transcendental part of the metaphysics of nature that was established in the Critique of Pure Reason? Does the former presuppose the principles of the latter or are they logically independent, but still related to each other in some other way?

First, Kant suggests that in special metaphysics the principles of the transcendental part "are applied to the two species of objects of our senses" (4:470). Thus, the particular kinds of things that could be investigated in a special metaphysics are (i) the objects of outer sense, i.e., matter, and (ii) the objects of inner sense, i.e., thinking beings, which would thus result in a doctrine of body and a doctrine of soul. Kant then argues that because "the possibility of determinate natural things cannot be cognized from their mere concepts … it is still required that the intuition corresponding to the concept be given a priori, that is, that the concept be constructed" (4:470), which is a task that requires mathematics. This is Kant's justification for his famous claim that "in any special doctrine of nature there can be only as much proper science as there is mathematics therein" (4:470). This argument suggests that the necessity required of the pure part of natural science derives from the necessity of the rules by which the mathematical construction of determinate things must proceed.

Kant then uses the claim that science proper requires the construction of the concept of the object in a priori intuition to exclude the possibility that chemistry and psychology, at least as they were practiced at that time, could count as science proper. In the case of chemistry, the problem is that "no law of the approach or withdrawal of the parts of matter can be specified according to which … their motions and all the consequences thereof can be made intuitive and presented a priori in space (a demand that will only with great difficulty ever be fulfilled)" (4:471). Since its principles are "merely empirical," it can, at best, be a "systematic art" (ibid.). The case of psychology is more complex, since Kant provides (at least) two separate reasons in the Preface for denying it the status of natural science proper. First, Kant claims that mathematics is inapplicable to the phenomena of inner sense and their laws, though he grants that the law of continuity (discussed, e.g., at A207-209/B253-255 and A228-229/B281 in the Critique of Pure Reason) ought to apply to changes in our representations as well. He downplays the significance of this application of the law of continuity, however, by noting that time has only one dimension, which does not provide enough material to extend our cognition significantly. Second, Kant also complains that empirical psychology cannot separate and recombine the phenomena of inner sense at will; rather, our inner observations can be separated "only by mere division in thought" (4:471). Kant's fuller views on chemistry and psychology will be discussed further below.

Kant is attempting to solve the problem of subjective perception, and it is this solution he presents in "Critique of Pure Reason". I don't agree with his solution, but that is unimportant for our discussion - what is important is how you can interpret Kant's suggested solution as synonymous with postmodernistic "everything is equal because it is only subjective interpretation of subjective perception".

Another shorter and simpler summary:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5f.htm#science

I quote from this website:

Kant's aim was to move beyond the traditional dichotomy between rationalism and empiricism. The rationalists had tried to show that we can understand the world by careful use of reason; this guarantees the indubitability of our knowledge but leaves serious questions about its practical content. The empiricists, on the other hand, had argued that all of our knowledge must be firmly grounded in experience; practical content is thus secured, but it turns out that we can be certain of very little. Both approaches have failed, Kant supposed, because both are premised on the same mistaken assumption.

Progress in philosophy, according to Kant, requires that we frame the epistemological problem in an entirely different way. The crucial question is not how we can bring ourselves to understand the world, but how the world comes to be understood by us. Instead of trying, by reason or experience, to make our concepts match the nature of objects, Kant held, we must allow the structure of our concepts shape our experience of objects. This is the purpose of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787): to show how reason determines the conditions under which experience and knowledge are possible.

<snip>

The first distinction separates a priori from a posteriori judgments by reference to the origin of our knowledge of them. A priori judgments are based upon reason alone, independently of all sensory experience, and therefore apply with strict universality. A posteriori judgments, on the other hand, must be grounded upon experience and are consequently limited and uncertain in their application to specific cases. Thus, this distinction also marks the difference traditionally noted in logic between necessary and contingent truths.

But Kant also made a less familiar distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments, according to the information conveyed as their content. Analytic judgments are those whose predicates are wholly contained in their subjects; since they add nothing to our concept of the subject, such judgments are purely explicative and can be deduced from the principle of non-contradiction. Synthetic judgments, on the other hand, are those whose predicates are wholly distinct from their subjects, to which they must be shown to relate because of some real connection external to the concepts themselves. Hence, synthetic judgments are genuinely informative but require justification by reference to some outside principle.

[quote="snoopyofour]
Positivism was just a reaffirmation of empiricist organized rationality which does nothing to combat Kant's philosophy except to say "]

Now I must ask you what you have read about logical positivism as well. You do realise that logical positivism and Kant cannot judge each other since one believe transcendental a priori knowledge must be the fundament for empirical knowledge and the other refutes the very idea that a priori assumptions give any knowledge at all? If you do not realise this, please explain to me how Kant's way of saying "NO you're wrong" differ from positivism's way of saying "NO you're wrong".

Also note that in my post above, I wrote "the scientific method as it is today, starting from the late 19th century positivism over through Popper and Kuhn, did not exist in Kant's time. You have choosen to build your claim that Kant "hit science very hard" on the idea that Kant was familiar with the idea of positivism although it was called empirism in his days, but you choose to omit the scientific method, Popper and Kuhn which are fundamental parts in modern science. Thus, I ask you again: how can you claim "I know that science is one of the things Kant hits the hardest" when the only thing he was familiar with was the empirism in his time, which was a basis for but not equal to logical positivism which in turn was a starting point for, but only part of, what is today known as science?

Please provide support for your interpretation, primary (ie original references) or secondary (ie textbook material or equivalent) references.

Finally, I'd like to ask you a personal question: do you believe in any religion? If so, do you think Kant's philosophy support your religious beliefs?

C Elegans; providing copious amounts of information in just one post.

@Damuna Nova: please refrain from meaningless off topic posts in the middle of a discussion.

PS @snoopyofour: The reason I asked for your personal beliefs are because I do not at all understand why it is so important to you what Kant thought and not in the context of a scientific finding regarding comparative genomics in primate speciation. I am wondering if you want to make an argument from authority?

Sure Kant's "Copernican revolution" was a pre-requisite for the development of postmodernism since postmodernism requires the assumption that the human mind cannot know the "ding an sich" because of the limits of our perception and cognition. Humans cannot know the absolute truth, but that does not mean (and Kant himself did not mean) that all human perception and interpretation are equally true or that postmodernism is more true than any other belief system.

"You do realise that logical positivism and Kant cannot judge each other since one believe transcendental a priori knowledge must be the fundament for empirical knowledge and the other refutes the very idea that a priori assumptions give any knowledge at all?"

And surely you must realize that one of if not the foundation of science, causality, is one of Kants synthetic a priori judgements whether positivists admit it or not. While everything you pasted about Kant was very large it hasn't required me to change my stance in the slightest. The mind creates the categories by which we understand our experience but there is no reason to believe that these categories exist in reality and apart from our experience. It is even possible that they are misleading of reality. This is the basic point I am trying to get across to you. You may be getting hung up on the fine print but this is one of the thrusts of Kant's philosophy and it would be very damaging to scientific philosophy that claims that empirical evidence gives real knowledge about the objective world independent of experience.


"Also note that in my post above, I wrote "the scientific method as it is today, starting from the late 19th century positivism over through Popper and Kuhn, did not exist in Kant's time. You have choosen to build your claim that Kant "hit science very hard" on the idea that Kant was familiar with the idea of positivism although it was called empirism in his days, but you choose to omit the scientific method, Popper and Kuhn which are fundamental parts in modern science. Thus, I ask you again: how can you claim "I know that science is one of the things Kant hits the hardest" when the only thing he was familiar with was the empirism in his time, which was a basis for but not equal to logical positivism which in turn was a starting point for, but only part of, what is today known as science?

I don't know where to start.

Okay,
You're asserting that Popper and Kuhn were somehow fundamental to science in a way that is relevant to Kant's arguments. I don't know about Kuhn but Popper was not. Modern science is fundamentally based on the methods of Newton, even if physics has moved beyond him. Neither Popper nor Kuhn nor positivism itself in any way actually addresses Kants arguments. Positivism wasn't a change so much in the methods of scientific study but in the way that scientific study was valued. Positivism was science finally asserting itself. All positivism really did to in any way combat Kants statements is to assert the Verifiability Criterion which amusingly enough fails its own standard. And all Popper did was to modify that criterion. Like I said none of this has anything to do with what Kant is talking about. The aspects of scientific study that Kant challenges haven't really changed all that much. It still relies on thought processes that Kant obliterates.

oh and yes I do have a religion and I know that Kant doesn't support it.

snoopyofour wrote:And surely you must realize that one of if not the foundation of science, causality, is one of Kants synthetic a priori judgements whether positivists admit it or not. While everything you pasted about Kant was very large it hasn't required me to change my stance in the slightest. The mind creates the categories by which we understand our experience but there is no reason to believe that these categories exist in reality and apart from our experience. It is even possible that they are misleading of reality. This is the basic point I am trying to get across to you.

You may be getting hung up on the fine print but this is one of the thrusts of Kant's philosophy and it would be very damaging to scientific philosophy that claims that empirical evidence gives real knowledge about the objective world independent of experience.

I don't remember exactly which concepts Kant suggested were synthetic a priori judgements, but I take your word that causality is one. What you seem to miss with my reasoning is that it does not matter exactly what Kant put in which category. What matters is that Kant believed in, and proposed, a model for gaining knowledge that was "purer", closer to objective reality, than simple subjective perception and subjective interpretation. You seem to believe that Kant only identified and presented the idea that the objective world cannot be perceived by humans due to the nature of human perception and cognition and that this leads to a postmodernistic "everything is equal"-subjectivism. I claim that this interpretation of Kant is incorrect due to the omission of Kant's fundamental ideas about how to gain genuine knowledge. Kant believed in "science proper" and described in detail how it should be conducted.
I am not saying that Kant's ideas about "science proper" were proposing or supporting modern science, so do not fear, I am saying his ideas are not equal to postmodernistic "everything is equal subjective interpretation since he proposed a model for how to gain "truer" knowledge". Now, I do not believe in his model for a second, but if you do, so be it. Just don't claim it does not exist, because it is incorrect. Or are you so postmodernistic so interpretation of a text cannot be correct or incorrect, it's only interpretation? If so, we just have to agree to disagree.

Again from the Stanford site:

Kant's philosophy of science has received attention from several different audiences and for a variety of reasons. It is of interest to contemporary philosophers of science primarily because of the way in which Kant attempts to articulate a philosophical framework that places substantive conditions on our scientific knowledge of the world while still respecting the autonomy and diverse claims of particular sciences. More specifically, Kant develops a philosophy of science that departs from (i) broadly empiricist views — such as David Lewis's, according to which purely contingent events in space and time (along with considerations of simplicity, etc.) determine what the laws of nature ultimately are — and (ii) certain necessitarian views — such as David Armstrong's, according to which the laws of nature consist of necessitation relations between universals, which place constraints on what events occur in space and time. Kant does so by holding that (i) scientific laws do involve necessity, but that (ii) this necessity is based not on (purely metaphysical and hence inaccessible) relations between universals, but rather on certain subjective, a priori conditions under which we can experience objects in space and time.

Furthermore, you completely omit the fact that Kant's ideas are only "damaging" to science if you choose to believe in them. Kant's metaphysics offered offered no more solutions than any other metaphysics, or any ideology or belief system that is based solely on internal consistency. You choose to focus only on Kant, but all non-objective ideology "cast doubt" as you say on any search for objective knowledge. Radical feminism and queer theory, fundamentalist religion, many political ideologies, solipsism and what have you would "cast doubt" on science in the same way as Kant - namely, if you choose to believe in them.

I don't know where to start.

Start with posting references for your interpretations, as I have asked for repeatedly?

Okay,
You're asserting that Popper and Kuhn were somehow fundamental to science in a way that is relevant to Kant's arguments. I don't know about Kuhn but Popper was not. Modern science is fundamentally based on the methods of Newton, even if physics has moved beyond him. Neither Popper nor Kuhn nor positivism itself in any way actually addresses Kants arguments. Positivism wasn't a change so much in the methods of scientific study but in the way that scientific study was valued. Positivism was science finally asserting itself. All positivism really did to in any way combat Kants statements is to assert the Verifiability Criterion which amusingly enough fails its own standard. And all Popper did was to modify that criterion. Like I said none of this has anything to do with what Kant is talking about. The aspects of scientific study that Kant challenges haven't really changed all that much. It still relies on thought processes that Kant obliterates.

And all Kant has really done was to suggest a belief system without any possibility for validation. Kant does not change anything in science more than any other belief system. Your personal opinion about Kant does not change that.

I am asserting Kuhn's and Popper's development of science were of importance for what you present as Kant's arguments against science. The reason for this is that both of them worked with development of methods for avoiding subjectivism and errors by interpretation. Modern science differs a lot from the empirism of Kant's days. You seem to have missed that metaphysics and science have very little in common these days!

However, I see from your paragraph above that you have choosen to make certain very schematic and simplified personal interpretations of what modern science is and how it works. Your summary of the development of modern science is simply a summary of your subjective negative opinions about science.

I am not going to even attempt to change your beliefs, since it is futile to present arguments that are based on the existance of an objective reality to a person who falls back on the argument that "maybe everything is an illusion". As you know, science does not deal with the kind of mixed theology/metaphysics/epistemology that was the cornerstones in some classical philosophy. Science, like positivism, starts with the belief in an objective reality that exist independently of the human mind. It does not, like for instance Kant, start with the belief that it's an absolute truth that god exists or like Berkely that nothing exists outside the human mind.

The Vienna positivism was established in the empirism that the true nature of things can be known to humans. In modern science, we are not so concerned about the question of the "hidden reality". It is not important whether this objective reality is as we humans perceive it of not, what is important is that we perceive systematic representations that are useful in an objective way. Btw, this is not at all contradictory to Kant's assumption that humans can find systematic and genuine knowledge via the representations of things. Kant does not, like some other philosophers, deny the existence of independent material objects. He was no solipist and you know it, don't you?

oh and yes I do have a religion and I know that Kant doesn't support it.

So why then do you put such emphasis on Kant as "damaging to modern science"? As I stated above, Kant's ideas are as "damaging" as all other non-objectivist ideas. If you choose to believe in them, you get some arguments phrased for you for free. However, they are no more than beliefs.

I don't mind turning this into a discussion about epistemology and philosophy of science, but I do think it is improductive to just state things like "feminism make science look bad". That's why I have insisted on your developing your reasoning and also post references to support your interpretation of Kant. You have however continued to post just your subjective opinions and interpretations of Kant's ideas and your beliefs about what science is. You are of course entitled to hold any opinions you wish, but for me it is of no interest to discuss with a person who hold the view that there is no objective reality. Clearly, if you think there is no difference between subjective beliefs and objective findings, you will always think science is crap and your subjectiveness is great. Also, you can find whatever arbitrary support for your views you wish (although you don't need them) since everything is only subjective interpretation that cannot be correct or incorrect.

Personally, I stick to science because it is useful for decreasing suffering in the world as we know it. You may think it is meaningless since the world may be an illusion. Yay, maybe it is an illusion that millions of people can cure their lethal diseases with antibiotics. I cannot see how believing in Kant's transcendental idealism and following his dialectics is useful in any way except as a personal ideology. It is important for science to consider and work for excluding as many putative biases as possible. However, it is completely improductive to just watch the suffering and think "oh, I won't do anything because maybe this perception of ours has no relationship to the ding an sich". Maybe it is an illusion that in 20 years we may be able to treat a majority of the worlds most destructive diseases. I am willing to take the risk

Well, you know, just because someone like Kant says something doesn't mean it is absolutely true. Maybe a lot of people believe it, and maybe there's a ring of truth to it, but it doesn't mean that Kant is applicable to every issue. And it certainly doesn't mean that one can use Kant to fully refute someone else's position, since whether you believe what Kant says is the truth is all point of view.

Alright, since we're just going to agree to disagree I'm just going to focus on correcting some of your mistaken ideas.

"Kant believed in, and proposed, a model for gaining knowledge that was "purer", closer to objective reality, than simple subjective perception and subjective interpretation"

This does not mean what you think it means. Kant actually redefined objective reality because his philosophy showed that objective reality in the sense you mean was unknowable.

" I am saying his ideas are not equal to postmodernistic "everything is equal subjective interpretation since he proposed a model for how to gain "truer" knowledge"

Alright if you still can't see the connection I'm not going to wasted any more time on it. By the way, your concept of postmodern theory is a little shallow if you're convinced its just "everything is interpretation".

"It does not, like for instance Kant, start with the belief that it's an absolute truth that god exists"

This could not be more wrong. God is one of Kant's transcendental illusions, absolutely unprovable and unknowable.

"As you know, science does not deal with the kind of mixed theology/metaphysics/epistemology that was the cornerstones in some classical philosophy. Science, like positivism, starts with the belief in an objective reality that exist independently of the human mind."

Kant never said that reality was an illusion, he said that the human mind plays an active role in how information is categorized and all this implies.

"And all Kant has really done was to suggest a belief system without any possibility for validation. Kant does not change anything in science more than any other belief system. Your personal opinion about Kant does not change that."

If you aren't familiar with his arguments then its not my responsibility.

"I am not going to even attempt to change your beliefs, since it is futile to present arguments that are based on the existance of an objective reality to a person who falls back on the argument that "maybe everything is an illusion""

If that is your understanding of what I'm saying then I've been talking to the wall.



"you will always think science is crap and your subjectiveness is great."

Correction, subjectiveness is undeniable. And if you are asserting that it is, then you've missed the boat on about 20 years of intellectual discourse.

"However, I see from your paragraph above that you have choosen to make certain very schematic and simplified personal interpretations of what modern science is and how it works. Your summary of the development of modern science is simply a summary of your subjective negative opinions about science."

Say what you want, this is purely academic for me, you're the one whose trying to defend your career. If I wanted to damage science I would just use my own arguments. You haven't actually said anything to argue with my point, either because you don't understand it or because you don't have anything to argue against it with. However, I will say that since you began this thread as an excuse to voice your biased subjective opinions about religion, you look like an enormous hypocrite for accusing me of doing the same for science. If you want to flat out deny everything that Kant says that's fine but you are no different from the fundamentalist Christian that would do the same to your article. If you feel like you're helping humanity that's great but when you try to take cheapshots at something that means everything for an enormous percentage of it, expect someone to show up to put your foot in your mouth. Anyway, I think I'm done with this discussion, its just you protecting your interests with whatever meager evidence followed by petty insults you can manage to muster.

@snoopyofour: Regardless of your debate with C Elegans it would be helpful to the rest of us if you commented on either her links about Kant's philosophy or, if you prefer, the wikipedia article on "critique of pure reason".

Or both.

Edit: If you find the information in any of this sources inaccurate it would be even more helpful if you could provide other links with accurate information.

Snoopy, I don't know why you simply refuse to answer any of my question and also refuse to post references to support your statements. I noticed that there was also another thread, about the Da Vinci code, where you had expressed offense at somebody else's post and asked him for references but yourself refused to provide any.

This paragraph of yours:

]If I wanted to damage science I would just use my own arguments. You haven't actually said anything to argue with my point wrote:your biased subjective opinions about religion[/b], you look like an enormous hypocrite for accusing me of doing the same for science. If you want to flat out deny everything that Kant says that's fine but you are no different from the fundamentalist Christian that would do the same to your article. If you feel like you're helping humanity that's great but when you try to take cheapshots at something that means everything for an enormous percentage of it, expect someone to show up to put your foot in your mouth. Anyway, I think I'm done with this discussion, its just you protecting your interests with whatever meager evidence followed by petty insults you can manage to muster.

...clearly shows that your posts in this thread and the Da Vinci Code thread is merely expression of, and propagation of, your personal dislike for science and like for religion. Now, if you want to believe in a religion it is of course your right. If you want to interpret Kant or any other thinker as it suits your religious ideas and refuse to provide any references for your interpretations, that is also fine with me - if you as a religious, anti-scientific person feel the need to back up your subjective ideas with some authorities, it's your problem. I have seen ID:ers who try to back up their beliefs with erranous interpretations of the findings by Pasteur
However, what is not fine is what I have bolded in your text, that you 1. throw out your own interpretations as if they were true or correct in an objective sense, like you do above when you claim the references I have posted "do not mean what you think it means" and instead, even without any references, claim your interpretation is more correct and 2. that the paragraph above contains a series of ad hominems and not factual arguments.

Chimeara and I are joking about Young Earth Creationists (IYC) and Intelligent Designers (ID). These are jokes, but they are not offensive jokes since anyone can go to the official material spread by Creationists and see that the ideas that god put the fossiles here to test mankinds faith etc, are very real ideas propagated by several groups of Creationists/ID:ers. A joke that describes reality is hardly offensive, eh? You however seem deeply offended, I don't know why but your final posts look like your true motive to post in this thread is simply home-made subjetive critisism of on the ground of your religious beliefs.
Now, I have discussed with a whole bunch of YED:ers and ID:ers over the years, and you show the same behaviour patterns in your arguments as is typical for people who hold these beliefs.

YED:ers and ID:ers believe that the biblic account of how their god created earth and man, is literally true. Thus, it is of major importance to them to discredit science, since scientific evidence are contradictory to their beliefs. The alternatives they present instead of the scientific evidence include
1. misdating of fossiles and the geological sediments, fossilies organisms died due to the Flood and are extinct because they weren't on Noah's ark
2. fossiles and other evidence of evolution and an old earth may have been places here as a test of faith
3. complex biological organisms and organs cannot have evolved since it "half an eye does not work" (see Behe's mouse trap argument and please read the last pages of this thread:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... reationism
and the this entire thread
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... cience+end
if you are interested in YED/ID beliefs and how they are incompatible with science

Snoopy, you remind me a lot of YED:ers and ID:ers I have discussed with and you furthermore has so far refused to post any references, refused to answer my questions and finally, you have resorted to ad hominems and accusations of my personal motives. Therefore, my final questions to you are:
Do you believe that humankind does not have a common ancestor with other species living on earth and
Do you believe that human has not evolved through millions of years but was put here by god in the same shape as we have today?

And if your answer to these questions are no, you don't believe this, I repeat my question: why is it so important to you to try to talk us into how bad science is and how true your interpretation of Kant is?

Sorry for jumping in with something totally (almost) unrelated to the current discussion Kant etc but I just read the thread and this was interesting:

[QUOTE=C Elegans]RCC sees no contradiction between christianity, evolution or the "big bang". The concept of Young Earth Creationism and more recently, "Intelligent design" originates from American fundamentalist christians.[/QUOTE]

This particular part about the BB always makes me laugh actually. Stephen Hawking described his audience with the Pope after the '81 conference and heard this from him - "He told us it was all right to study the evolution of the Universe after the big bang but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God" (A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking) and then of course proceeded to talk about his then theory which would actually limit God severly, feeling thankful that he did no mention this.

Usually when talking about the BB people say that it does not negate God, and it does not, for It would have been able to create the initial conditions for the BB as well as the laws which govern the Universe. The reason I am mentioning this is are the final thoughts of this book - if the Universe really can be completely explained by a unified theory then this carries great consequences with itself (will skip the physics part of the explanations, too technical) - or as Prof. Hawking says the asnwer to Einstein's - "How much choice did God have in constructing the Universe?" would be - he would have had no freedom at all to choose the inital conditions. Even the laws that the Universe 'obeys' would not have been a 'choice' really because there may be an infinently small number, or even one, of unified theories that would allow for the complex Universe we live in.

Now how is the RCC, or any church going to handle that is what I would like to live to see or the answer of the church to what S.H. wrote - "the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have no beginning nor end, would simply be. What place then for a creator?" (ibid)

Which brings us to the last paragraph and the reason I stepped into this discussion, you reminded me of it:

"However, if we do discover a complete theory , it should in time be understandablein broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people , be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -for then we would know the mind of God." (ibid)

Brilliant man that. And no wonder that physicists are not all that well liked in certain circles Anyways, sorry for jumping in, the thread just made me think about this.

[QUOTE=Ashen]Sorry for jumping in with something totally (almost) unrelated to the current discussion Kant etc [/quote]

Well, the discussion about Kant is completely and totally unrelated to the article that this thread is supposed to be about, so no need for excuses! On the contrary, your post points at what I think is most important of all regarding this topic, namely the lack of conflict between science and religion. Science and religion does not at all need to be contradictory in any way. The big bang, the abiogenesis (how life started on earth) and evolution do all not exclude the existance of a god but they don't require one either. Thus, what is the need for conflict? The transcendental realm is beyond the scope of science and the transcendent world if there is one is beyond the scope of religion. I don't understand why, but some religious subgroups like creationists have a need to make certain claims about biological mechanisms, and then a conflict arises because their claims are based on faith and science is based on observable facts.

Btw, Hawking is a fine scientist who has expressed this lack of conflict very well. I like him a lot.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]

Btw, Hawking is a fine scientist who has expressed this lack of conflict very well. I like him a lot.[/QUOTE]

That's simply due to the fact that Hawking and his books (destined to the non-scientist community) just rule. Who in the world hates him?

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]That's simply due to the fact that Hawking and his books (destined to the non-scientist community) just rule. Who in the world hates him?[/QUOTE]

A couple of years ago I actually saw a Creationist website that wrote a lot of negative thing about Hawking due to his statement "the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have no beginning nor end, would simply be. What place then for a creator?" (my bold) which Ashen quoted above.

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]That's simply due to the fact that Hawking and his books (destined to the non-scientist community) just rule. Who in the world hates him?[/QUOTE]I wouldn't go so far as to hate him but I do feel that his use of the definite (i.e. "the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have no beginning nor end, would simply be. What place then for a creator?"-my emphasis*) in an area (Cosmology) where order of magnitude assumptions are common, to be galling. Unless something has changed recently, the 'discovery' he got the post of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics for (Hawking Radiation) has steadfastly defied actual observation.

I'd rate him as fair to poor as a science communicator. He persistantly perpetuates uncertainties as definites.

I'd rate him as 'yet to be ascertained' as a scientist because essentially all of his work is in an area where actual confirmation of theoretical speculation is going to be a long time coming, if ever. Don't get me wrong his theories and his math are brilliant, I'm just a little sceptical as to how well they mesh with the physical world (as defined by the consensus of peer reviewed work amoung those who claim to be physicists on the basis of relevent qualification or acknowledgement from recognised academies .).

Despite the laudable work outlined in the article fronting this topic I really don't see why god didn't do it. They just used exactly that methodology. If I was Nick Patterson, Daniel J. Richter, Sante Gnerre, Eric S. Lander or David Reich, I'd be a little bit worried as most people don't like having their handy work scrutinised too closely, or their purse rumaged through :mischief: - Curdis !

* This is a bad example because I believe in this case - in context - he is actually using a qualifier, BUT if you are familiar with his work you will understand that particularily the inflationary big bang, and black holes are expressed as definite givens. This may turn out to be correct, it just hasn't been to date.

Hi Curdis, nice to see you and nice to see you in this thread.

Curdis] Unless something has changed recently wrote:
Just a note: Hawking has not got a Nobel prize and I doubt if he will. I have a friend who is a theoretical physicist and his opinion is that it's possible Hawking gets the price, but I doubt because:
1. The requirements to get the price is that the discoveries are observed, you cannot get it for a hypothesis.
2. Hawking is suffering from a neurodegenerative disorder than may well shorten his life significantly. You cannot get the Nobel prize posthumously.

I'd rate him as fair to poor as a science communicator. He persistantly perpetuates uncertainties as definites.

I'd rate him as 'yet to be ascertained' as a scientist because essentially all of his work is in an area where actual confirmation of theoretical speculation is going to be a long time coming, if ever. Don't get me wrong his theories and his math are brilliant, I'm just a little sceptical as to how well they mesh with the physical world (as defined by the consensus of peer reviewed work amoung those who claim to be physicists on the basis of relevent qualification or acknowledgement from recognised academies .)

Well, I agree with this and perhaps I should have said I view him as a fine mathemathician or a fine theorist rather than a fine scientist. I do however think he (like Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins) is a good science science communicator simply because he makes people interested in the subject. This is no small feat in my opinion. All of these three guys share the same habit to state hypothesis as if it was demonstrated, and they also have a tendency to push for their own hypothesis rather than giving a state-of-the-art of the entire of the field. On the other hand, in their defence I must say that I have still to meet the layman who is truly interested in getting a broad view of the entire field but limits her/himself to reading only the popular work by one researcher.

As you know I am far from a physicist - just like philosophy I took a uni course before I started focusing on neuroscience - so I cannot rate Hawking's writing as I can rate my own field, but the only person I know who writes really high quality popular science that is fairly representative of the field, is Antonio Damasio. Funny enough, I have never met a single layman who has read his popular work - however all my colleagues enjoy them

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Just a note: Hawking has not got a Nobel prize and I doubt if he will. I have a friend who is a theoretical physicist and his opinion is that it's possible Hawking gets the price, but I doubt because:
1. The requirements to get the price is that the discoveries are observed, you cannot get it for a hypothesis.
2. Hawking is suffering from a neurodegenerative disorder than may well shorten his life significantly. You cannot get the Nobel prize posthumously.[/quote] Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know where I came to believe he had (but I certainly did). The scientific part is still correct.

I also agree that part of being a science communicator is in establishing yourself with a public profile and I forgive some amount of special pleading and loose talk in doing so. I just really dislike the 'unspoken assumption' model when it come to cosmology. From his own propaganda site: "With Roger Penrose he showed that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity implied space and time would have a beginning in the Big Bang and an end in black holes(Emphasis added by me)." Codswallop. There is more than one way to interpret this and Hawking and Penrose both know it. *sigh*

[QUOTE=C Elegans]As you know I am far from a physicist - just like philosophy I took a uni course before I started focusing on neuroscience - so I cannot rate Hawking's writing as I can rate my own field, but the only person I know who writes really high quality popular science that is fairly representative of the field, is Antonio Damasio. Funny enough, I have never met a single layman who has read his popular work - however all my colleagues enjoy them [/QUOTE] I don't know CE, you appear to punch well above your weight in Philosophy . I'm looking forward to you "correcting some of your mistaken ideas".

Antonio Damasio? Wasn't he in the Da Vinci Code?

I take it your letting my provocative (on topic) comments pass? Wise woman. - Curdis !