Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Why Evolution is True (2012 Jerry Coyne Lectu

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 10:35:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

The Fool: Natural is coined by Aristotle, as being, the necessary propertied for the existence of something. But everything exist. We exist, we are natural, thus we are part of the natural enviroment of animals, and we have selected for some,(domestication) and made some extinct. Its sound to easy to be true. But I would remind you that its do to inconsistency of holding definition still over the past. Which often presupposes us of some higher divine made nature, namley God, But without that assumption, its doesn't make sense. Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 10:45:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 10:35:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

The Fool: Natural is coined by Aristotle, as being, the necessary propertied for the existence of something. But everything exist. We exist, we are natural, thus we are part of the natural enviroment of animals, and we have selected for some,(domestication) and made some extinct. Its sound to easy to be true. But I would remind you that its do to inconsistency of holding definition still over the past. Which often presupposes us of some higher divine made nature, namley God, But without that assumption, its doesn't make sense. Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.

Do you just like saying things for the sake of saying things?

Scientists aren't using "nature" in an old-school Aristotelian sense. They're using it in terms methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism. Anything empirically measurable which is not significantly acted upon by human agency is considered part of "nature." If it is acted upon by human agency, we say it is "artificial" yet exists as part of nature. Methodological naturalism isn't meant to be an exhaustive description of reality.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 3:09:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 10:35:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

The Fool: Natural is coined by Aristotle, as being, the necessary propertied for the existence of something. But everything exist. We exist, we are natural, thus we are part of the natural enviroment of animals, and we have selected for some,(domestication) and made some extinct. Its sound to easy to be true. But I would remind you that its do to inconsistency of holding definition still over the past. Which often presupposes us of some higher divine made nature, namley God, But without that assumption, its doesn't make sense. Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.

this is a scientific topic, not philisophic, so I'm assuming the scientific definition would need to be accepted rather than Aristotle's (although I love his work).
My legend begins in the 12th century
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 4:42:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

Coyne is terrible at philosophy (as he consistently demonstrates with his forays into issues like free will, religion, and ethics) but I'm sure he's a much better scientist than philosopher. I'll read the book whenever I have time.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 4:59:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: There is NO Demarcation between Philosophy and Science.

Critical philosphy, that is.. Knowledge through critical analisys. Theorizing it self is always philosophy, That is Natural Science is within the framwork of philosophy, its not an option.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 6:11:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 4:59:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: There is NO Demarcation between Philosophy and Science.

Critical philosphy, that is.. Knowledge through critical analisys. Theorizing it self is always philosophy, That is Natural Science is within the framwork of philosophy, its not an option.

I really do think you just ype to watch your own posts.
My legend begins in the 12th century
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 6:15:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 10:45:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/14/2012 10:35:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/14/2012 6:01:43 PM, Microsuck wrote:
One of the best books I've ever read. The video is long, but well worth it.

The Fool: Natural is coined by Aristotle, as being, the necessary propertied for the existence of something. But everything exist. We exist, we are natural, thus we are part of the natural enviroment of animals, and we have selected for some,(domestication) and made some extinct. Its sound to easy to be true. But I would remind you that its do to inconsistency of holding definition still over the past. Which often presupposes us of some higher divine made nature, namley God, But without that assumption, its doesn't make sense. Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.

Do you just like saying things for the sake of saying things?

Scientists aren't using "nature" in an old-school Aristotelian sense.

The Fool: oh really? Sorry, I didn't expect it to be over you head.

They're using it in terms methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism.

The Fool: oh yeah. Your right the non-existing stuff.

Anything empirically measurable which is not significantly acted upon by human agency is considered part of "nature."

The Fool: Oh you mean measureing conscious experiences. In this case the pre-concpetualized sense data, in our minds.

If it is acted upon by human agency, we say it is "artificial" yet exists as part of nature.

The Fool: Oh like a MEASUREMENT. I get it now. Oh I most of missed that part when I said 'Regardless calling what we do, as artifical, man made, doesn't mean it cannot or not simply within he category of natural.' But you are sharp one, I tell you that.

Methodological naturalism isn't meant to be an exhaustive description of reality.

The Fool: oh I thought I was all reality. When I mention it next time, I will make sure include that part.. Which brings me to my next point. Don't smoke crack for it unless you ready for an intellecual smack!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL