Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: The Experts Speak

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Useful by your definition, not in practice necessarily.

The list I provided is perfectly intelligible to those who have had experience with intuition, inspiration, and the "zone."

To the blind man, talk of colors is not useful.
More...
Still doesn't explain a thing.

You still need a method to know what in the "zone" is.

Not just what it feels like or does for you, but 'know what and how in the zone is' , other than , emotion or sensation, unless that's all it is. But you still need a method to know that's all it is. Scientific method is the most useful and meaningful known

Talking of blind men and colors has nothing to do with a method to know something by.

If you just want to say daft things then here's one...... 'To a dead man talking of "the zone" is not useful'.
 
"You still need a method to know what in the "zone" is."

Are you speaking about your own needs for a method of knowing what the "zone" is?

I know what the "zone" for an athlete is, having had direct experience with the "zone."

That I cannot control it, nor produce it at will doesn't invalidate the experience nor justify a statement that it cannot be "known."

Let's just say that to use your terminology, it is a "natural" experience for athletes.

Other athletes understand completely what the "zone" is when I use the term or describe the experience.

Non athletes won't understand.

The deaf will never understand the experience of a Mozart symphony either.

99.99% of the worlds population can't do the actual math of Einstein's or Hawking's deep work either, as they lack the intellectual capacity and development to do the math, they would view the chalkboard as the work of a "daft" individual.

Quote from stu:

Still doesn't explain a thing.

You still need a method to know what in the "zone" is.

Not just what it feels like or does for you, but 'know what and how in the zone is' , other than , emotion or sensation, unless that's all it is. But you still need a method to know that's all it is. Scientific method is the most useful and meaningful known

Talking of blind men and colors has nothing to do with a method to know something by.

If you just want to say daft things then here's one...... 'To a dead man talking of "the zone" is not useful'.
More...
 
Attached is an image of a rose (jpg format) as viewed in notepad.

Digital information doesn't provide the beauty, the color, nor the fragrance of the rose to our perceptions.

How do we know science is the best method of knowing?

Logic.

How we know logic is the best way of knowing?

Science tells us so.

You need the right computer program to view a file correctly, yet how can the "scientists" and "atheists" be so sure we are viewing life with the correct mental programs?

Given the mind is not limited like a computer, it is much more than a computer with other abilities a computer lacks.

It seems to me that without knowledge of what is the "right" program to use to view something, the "truth" of something may be seen, as in the digital data behind the rose jpg, but the understanding and experiential value of the rose may be missing.

Everything is a matter of perspective, relative perspectives, relative truths are sure to follow.

Quote from aphexcoil:

What I've learned in life is that you can use all the most colorful descriptors imaginable -- the most flowing and beautiful words, the deepest emotions (basically what it means do me a complex, thinking machine) and most atheists won't see past the "logic 1's and 0's" mentality they have on the world.

If you know that feeling of being close to god, then consider yourself extremely fortunate -- especially in today's increasingly godless society.

You may not get another man to believe in god, but you can sharpen and enhance your own relationship with him.
More...
 

Attachments

Quote from ARogueTrader
How do we know science is the best method of knowing?
More...
There is no other way of knowing. There is no other practical method to use . There never has been.

You ask of science “how do we know” when there are endless examples of the results of science.
Yet you don’t ask of “the zone” when there are only expressions of it, and non expressions of it, by some athletes.

I know what the "zone" for an athlete is, having had direct experience with the "zone."

So do I

But you don't know what the "zone" is any more than I do or the next person. Again its simply a noun.

The "zone" will be many things to different athletes. Some describe it as breaking the pain barrier, others as a combination of the perfect working day and good weather and a of feeling 'just right'.

Then one day a great athlete might tell you this "zone" thing is rubbish, there is no such thing.
Then all the athletes stop referring to the "zone" and start wearing their baseball caps back to front.

You still don't know what the "zone" is or was.
You still need a method to know what in the "zone" is or was.


You need the right computer program to view a file correctly, yet how can the "scientists" and "atheists" be so sure we are viewing life with the correct mental programs?

You have just expressed the need for scientific method so as to be sure you have the correct mental programs. In other words, you need to test to know. You need a meaningful method. The scientific one is the only test ever known to be of use.

All you want to do is remain in a world of not using the only test ever known to be of practical use, science, and remain in a pretence of wonderland-non-understanding of the supernatural, as if that were more practical or useful 'cause it is made to sound mysterious. Unfortunately for your argument is known as bollocks.

You only know You need the right computer program because you know there is a program. You have substantial evidence to know that fact.

All you are doing is making a wild guess that that there is a 'different way of knowing' when there is no substantial evidence whatsoever that there is.

99.99% of the worlds population can't do the actual math of Einstein's or Hawking's deep work either, as they lack the intellectual capacity and development to do the math, they would view the chalkboard as the work of a "daft" individual.

There is no reason to, as math as a method has already provided countless examples of practical benefit from its conception and throughout the ages. Exponents of math such as Einstein and Hawkin's have their work scrutinised endlessly by others of all sorts of capability and capacity.

But because it is based upon a scientific method which has shown and proved itself to be monumentally significant, there is a reasonable understanding their findings are in line with the reality of things.

Only the intolerant might view the chalkboard of anyone as "daft".

I view your chalkboard as unsupportable and meaningless, which is a lot less useful than "daft".


Aphex

You make some very thoughtless comments seeing how you have learned in life one can use colorful descriptors.

...."atheists won't see past the "logic 1's and 0's" mentality they have on the world."

What kind of deepest emotions made you say that?

There are many (if not most for all I know) a-theists who hold every bit a marvel and wonderment of the universe as any theist. In some ways the a-theistic view could be expressed as more of a deep and meaningful understanding, where it is based on an appreciation of natural events.

And just why the hell should a belief in supernatural mythical obscurity make you extremely fortunate ?

Perhaps you still need to think a little more before you say things like that. It is expected of ART, but I had an expectation for you to be a little more rational. (After all , you were a Monitor at one time )
 
There is no other way of knowing. There is no other practical method to use . There never has been.

Practical? So cavemen weren't practical? Now you know what is "practical" for human beings? More hubris.

Love isn't "practical." Nor is artistic expression. Nor is singing.

You seem to me to be quite "impractical" when it comes to understanding of human nature.

You ask of science “how do we know” when there are endless examples of the results of science.

Humans observe, record data, and then guess as to why, but we don't "know" why.

Why is there gravity? Why is there logic? Why do human beings use only 90% of their brains?

The list of why questions lacking factual and not speculative answers that science is unable to answer is endless.

Yet you don’t ask of “the zone” when there are only expressions of it, and non expressions of it, by some athletes.

There are experiences of "the zone" and the expressions of it are the performances seen by the observers.

The athlete knows he is in the zone. He many not know how he got into the "zone" or why he got into the "zone" but he has absolute certainty that he is in the "zone" where he is there.

He knows it.

But you don't know what the "zone" is any more than I do or the next person. Again its simply a noun.

Nonsense. If this were true, then when an athlete "re-entered" the zone, he would not know he was in the zone.

Yet he knows he is in the zone when it happens.

The "zone" will be many things to different athletes. Some describe it as breaking the pain barrier, others as a combination of the perfect working day and good weather and a of feeling 'just right'.

People can describe a sunset differently too based on their subjectivity, mood, point of view, etc.

The zone is a known experience of athletes.

You cannot say that they don't know it, for if they did not know it, they would have no knowledge of having been in it.

Yet they do know.

Then one day a great athlete might tell you this "zone" thing is rubbish, there is no such thing. Then all the athletes stop referring to the "zone" and start wearing their baseball caps back to front.

You are not an athlete. Michael Jordan used to talk about the "zone" when he "knew" he would score.

You can play word and mind games with what Jordan knew, but he knew it and had complete faith in it as well.

He didn't need science to verify it, he didn't need a skeptic's approval of it. He knew it. It was known.

You still don't know what the "zone" is or was.
You still need a method to know what in the "zone" is or was.

Nope, I don't need to know what the "zone" is. It is known on the basis of experience.

A child doesn't need to know why candy is sweet.

The what and the whys are not always necessary to know and experience.


You have just expressed the need for scientific method so as to be sure you have the correct mental programs. In other words, you need to test to know. You need a meaningful method. The scientific one is the only test ever known to be of use.

The limit of the scientific method is that it does well for objectivity, but fails miserably with subjectivity. Yet subjectivity is a known fact for all human beings, as they are much more than computers.

Yet life is not without, or cannot be without subjectivity.

We rely on logic and perception, yet we don't know with absolute certainty that our logic and perceptions are accurate. What check do we have on human logic and perception but human logic and perception?

It is circular and relativistic in nature.

All you want to do is remain in a world of not using the only test ever known to be of practical use, science, and remain in a pretence of wonderland-non-understanding of the supernatural, as if that were more practical or useful 'cause it is made to sound mysterious. Unfortunately for your argument is known as bollocks.

Now you know "all I want to do?"

Hubris.

All you are doing is making a wild guess that that there is a 'different way of knowing' when there is no substantial evidence whatsoever that there is.

No, I am being scientifically skeptical. If it is a possibility that an instrument is not calibrated properly, if we lack certainty that our calculations are 100% accurate, can we draw conclusions with 100% certainty?

Nope.

How do you know that your mind and senses are calibrated properly?

You don't, as you have no reference point of proper calibration that was not subjectively arrived at.

There is no reason to, as math as a method has already provided countless examples of practical benefit from its conception and throughout the ages. Exponents of math such as Einstein and Hawkin's have their work scrutinised endlessly by others of all sorts of capability and capacity.

Faith has provided countless examples and testimony of its value to human beings.

But because it is based upon a scientific method which has shown and proved itself to be monumentally significant, there is a reasonable understanding their findings are in line with the reality of things.

The common man has to trust the work scientists and mathematicians on the basis of faith, not having done the math himself.
 
ART:
>Love isn't "practical." Nor is artistic expression.
>Nor is singing.

If such is your world, I truly feel sad for you.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top