Re: Darwinism causes people to stop loving each other


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
No Stew you are wrong, and I'm actually right about this. My argument
as it stands is the way things are. It is what is happening and now,
and what was happening then, concerning Darwinism in societal
intellectual climate.

If you are right you should be able to explain things in detail. That's
the thing about reality, you can zoom up on it and examine it in any
detail. You should easily be able to answer quesitons in plain english
and have more in reserve.

Its not a matter of saying 'I'm right' you need to demonstrate you are
right otherwise no one will believe you - this is understandable . So
reading on do you do this?


One has to consider issues which are big, and issues which are small,
and issues which are phenomenally huge. Knowledge about choice in
general, not just in a narrow interpretation of any religious sect, but
in general, is a huge thing.

But what is it? You're being very very vauge here.


It is basically as big as the class of
knowledge in terms of cause and effect is. So how we fundamentally deal
with that knowledge about choice is going to have a lot of effect on
things.

But what is it?

I propose we handle it in the traditional tried and tested
ways, in the established ways in which we practically use the concept
in every day life. I propose we give that established practice the
intellectual recognition that it deserves.

Great but we can only do that if you say what it is. We can apply
objectivity to it, explore it, question it, debate it etc.

At the moment you havnt said what it is.

Let me give you an example (and this is what you need to do as well
instead of making vauge statements about apparantly nothing).

Cause and effect is when one thing afects another in a continous chain.
Start points and end points are arbitary but tend to be defined in
terms of 'an event'. The whole area of cause and effect tends to be
called 'causality'. In theory anything that happens has a cause and
leads on to future effects rippling out from that point through time
and space. The resolution of an event can, to a degree, be seen to be
infinite it can always be sliced into thinner time slices or be taken
down to a smaller scale to explore the atomic, sub atomic and what ever
lies below that. What we call random are chains of cause and effect
that are too complex for us to predict in an accurate way. Truely
random events may or may not exist, that is effects with no cause. If
they do they would happen on such a small scale and so rarely as to
evened out at even the atomic level. Chaotic behavour should not be
confused with truely random, for example. Chaotic is when there are is
a level of cause and effect at a highly unpredictable level, like the
water molicules in boiling water. But even apparant chaotic systems
can become predicatble at higher scales.

Science is based upon the assumption that the same cause will lead to
the same effect throughout time, or to put it another way, the central
rules of the universe have remain unchanged. This is the one
assumption of science, although even that could be tested using the
scientific method in theory. It also relies upon causality as aposed to
a non causual universe. If the universe was non causual then it would
quite literaly make sense and logic would simply not work even on a
basic level.

The assumption the universe is causual is born out by the fact
everything does work in a predictable way if everything is known about
it. For example an apple will fall off a tree according to gravity, a
pool ball will rebound off another way in a predictable way and if we
do no eat then we will eventualy die due to lack of energy to keep our
body running and fighting entropy (entropy being a continue process of
cause and effect that spreads energy due to interaction).

Now being verbose is not an indication that someone is right but I hope
this demonstrates I can explain cause and effect and it works in the
fine detail. You can ask me questions about it and I can answer. I can
explain what it is, how it works, give objective examples and explain
the alternatives.

You on the other hand can't explain what it is, can't explain how it
works, can't give examples and won't consider alternatives.

Even if some of my detail is wrong others can explain where it is
wrong, fill gaps, expand etc because I am using commonly understood
terms that don't have a meaning to myself and myself only. It is
common knowledge.

On this basis I can easily say, without worry, that out of the two of
us I'm on very safe ground to say I'm right and you are wrong.

The problem lies with working out the way to convince you. In your view
what evidence would be needed to prove that you are wrong? If you
cannot entertain the concept that you are wrong then you have closed
mind and are very likely to be wrong. Feel free to ask me the same
question.

Stew Dean

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where does the information come from?
    ... Information consists of chosen alternatives. ... choosing is thus completely new in the universe. ... Creatio ex nihilo, these 3 words accurately describe the origins of ... *descriptions* of the world at some scale. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: IS TIME REAL?
    ... >>| place to place in the universe. ... >>physics is very much concerned with such things, ... Because it's not a true spacial dimension. ... > arbitrary scale that we have universally accepted. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hogg says "fractal universe is untenable"
    ... of manifolds could be reduced by transform to a simple sphere ... quantum masses or the groupings of matter in the observed universe ... are you happy with the conventional Planck scale? ... Reminds me of somebody up Mass. ...
    (sci.fractals)
  • Re: Our Expanding Universe
    ... and no expansion is observed on local scales. ... and with useful assumptions for e.g. the Universe as a whole ... This is not a quantitative prediction of a scale. ... infinite percent-wise increase in distances per unit of time. ...
    (sci.astro)