New fossil moves story of mankind back one million years

[Oatmeal]

The thing with empericism is that is that there really aren't any guidelines that go along with it. Its all based on personal opinion being that its philosophical in nature.  In my opinion, it covers such a broad spectrum of thinking, how are there any rules to say who's wrong and who's right based on what their experience with a phenomenon? 

WHAT?!?!
Personal experience doesn't have place in scientific conjecture, if that's what you're asserting, there ARE VERY strict guidelines when it comes to both the scientific method and empiricism. Philosophy and opinions are both things that can't be proven, unlike empiricism, which is objective.

I realize this about evolution.  Did you ever read "The Origin of Species?"  I tried but I had such a hard time trying to understand the older style language.

I have, if only Darwin knew what we know now.

Have you ever read the King James Bible? The Dead Sea Scrolls for that matter?

I agree that creationism cannot be categorized as conventional science, but as far as the philisophical side of science, I don't see why it couldn't. 

Philosophy and science are two different things entirely, scientists, in contrast with philosophers, show their work.

I never said theories graduate into laws, and by putting "just" in front of theory, I was only trying to explain that theories can constantly change and are not concrete. 

When you say just a theory, you are in essence belittling the inquiries leading to and justifying the theory of how poulations change over time, and belittling the fact that populations change over time.

[megman13]

Certain elements of philosophy, such as symbolic logic, can be proven.

[Oatmeal]

What's the corrolation between the two?

[megman13]

Between what two?

Science and philosophy?

Symbolic logic and empiricism?

Symbolic logic and philosophy?

[Oatmeal]

Symbolic logic and philosophy, are expressions of boolean logic, therefore, philosophical?

[megman13]

As far as I'm aware, symbolic logic is considered a branch of philosophy.

Then again, I've always been inclined to categorize science as a subset of philosophy (rising from skepticism and empiricism).

It seems to have become trendy to try to belittle philosophy, but true philosophy is, IMO, quite respectable.

[Oatmeal]

Thanks for clarifying.

Aristotle is a good example of Philosophy vs. Science, he never tested his ideas, but waves of people followed him, as he did speak of heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones.

[megman13]

When it comes to empirical things, clearly, science wins (even though, as I said, I consider science to be a type of philosophy, so, I suppose philosophy still wins indirectly). The problem is that science is limited to the empirical, whereas philosophy gives us an option to explore that which is not empirical.

[Oatmeal]

Well, when you sit around speculating all day, no wonder your only intellectual status is defined by the question, " If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I digress. Is the glass half empty or half full? Who cares, it's time for a refill.

[megman13]

It will make vibrations in the air but it isn't sound unless it's actually heard and interpreted as such.

It is both half empty and half full at the same time.

[Oatmeal]

It will make vibrations in the air but it isn't sound unless it's actually heard and interpreted as such.

How do you know there are trees, given that you can't hear them and most likely can't see them, if you can't empirically prove the existence of these trees falling as you cannot hear them falling nor, for the sake of argument, see them, then I have no reason to believe you in saying these trees are falling let alone exist for that matter. This is the point, no?

It is both half empty and half full at the same time.

It's completely full, smartass.

[ChavesChaves]

National Geographic

..no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/


45% of adults are complete morons. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[Ratsnake]

 It's amazing that people can accept other scientific theories as fact, and yet evolution somehow is hard to accept. I think it's because humans are arrogant and the idea that they were not created in the image of some deity makes their lives meaningless. They refuse to crack open a book or check out websites like talkorogins.org and continue to say ignorant things like "I didn't come from a monkey, or " If we came from monkeys, then why are there still gorillas?"
 

[megski]

The thing with empericism is that is that there really aren't any guidelines that go along with it. Its all based on personal opinion being that its philosophical in nature.  In my opinion, it covers such a broad spectrum of thinking, how are there any rules to say who's wrong and who's right based on what their experience with a phenomenon?   

-There are very strict guidelines for the scientific process.

I realize this about evolution.  Did you ever read "The Origin of Species?"  I tried but I had such a hard time trying to understand the older style language. 

-I'm reading it right now. I actually re-started it because I wanted to take notes on it, as opposed to merely reading.

To be honest, I was surprised how easy it is to read- better than some of the biology textbooks I've dealt with.

I agree that creationism cannot be categorized as conventional science, but as far as the philisophical side of science, I don't see why it couldn't.

-What philosophical side of science?  Science is empirical. You could say that as a purely philosophical idea, creationism might work, but not in any scientific sense.

I never said theories graduate into laws, and by putting "just" in front of theory, I was only trying to explain that theories can constantly change and are not concrete.

-You said it was "just... a theory, ...but not a law". Theories and laws are totally different, and one is not "superior" to the other. The fact that evolution is not a law is not a shortcoming or flaw on its part, it's just the nature of what a theory is. Scientific laws are just as susceptible to invalidation or modification as theories.

I guess that my interpretation of emperical science is different or just wrong. 

I wish I still had my copy.  I just remember reading some of it and kind of joking to myself, "A finch that hath different beak!  Thou hast seen a pattern."  I'm sitting here trying to remember something from it to prove I did read some of it, but I've got nothing.  I should probably go and get another copy. 

touche. 

[megski]

National Geographic

..no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/


45% of adults are complete morons. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Why do they have to be morons because of a belief system?