Futures Red Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Fair enough. But I shall evaluate your ideas in that context. Philosophy is a precursor to science from before mankind realised the value of experiment. It survives primarily in the regions which science has yet to successfully conquer. Your attempts to apply it to areas already within the domain of science is doomed and will justifiably leave you subject to ridicule. ---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 12:38 ---------- Your conclusions are ill-informed and quite, quite wrong. Cannibalism is quite common where it is practical. Many species struggle to eat things their own size for obvious reasons. How do you know that I will feel ridiculed? I smell projection It's all science... We're all science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Could evolutionary biology cause evolutionary culture or could evolutionary culture cause evolutionary biology? To me, it's not black and white as some might suggest. The problem with "science" is that it has to see it to believe it and won't allow themselves to get curious. Its a little like religion in that respect; it's in the book so it has to be true! More of being told what to think rather than how to think. Enjoying your posts btw Science is all about observation and explaining what is observed. It's intensely curious about the universe and natural world, and also hypercritical of attempts to explain it (thus always striving to form a better explanation). What that means is that crackpot ideas with no evidence to support them are rapidly dismissed in favour of explanations that actually explain, make falsifiable predictions and match the evidence available. The scientific method is entirely about HOW to think, not at all about WHAT to think. ---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 12:48 ---------- I take a philosophical approach whereby I believe no one is wrong and everything is possible. So if I tell you I can flap my arms and fly, you'll not believe that I'm wrong? You'll think it possible that I can actually do that? How do you function in life if you are unable to determine reality from make believe? ---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 12:50 ---------- How do you know that I will feel ridiculed? I smell projection It's all science... We're all science. Science is just a framework to investigate and understand the universe. We are not science. We are bags of proteins and water with delusions of grandeur. ---------- Post added 25-05-2016 at 12:51 ---------- How do you know that I will feel ridiculed? I smell projection Subject to ridicule. Whether you feel ridiculed or not wasn't asserted. The language wasn't vague, why misinterpret it, all part of your philosophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futures Red Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) Science is all about observation and explaining what is observed. It's intensely curious about the universe and natural world, and also hypercritical of attempts to explain it (thus always striving to form a better explanation). What that means is that crackpot ideas with no evidence to support them are rapidly dismissed in favour of explanations that actually explain, make falsifiable predictions and match the evidence available. The scientific method is entirely about HOW to think, not at all about WHAT to think. Some elite scientists were accused of having crackpot ideas at one point - then turned out to be true... then obvious. Then mediocre scientists would then all jump on the bandwagon of what was once merely idiosyncratic. It's all science. It's not black and white. The problem with some scientists are that they don't want to talk about the quantum of life, the quantum of thought, the quantum of self healing etc, they get scared because they can't see it. The silly thing is I agree with most of the posts in this section, but a back and white mindset leads to dead ends which is indeed unhealthy. Edited May 25, 2016 by Futures Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Not accused by other scientists though. They don't want to talk about mystical soundbites, I can entirely understand why. If you can't measure it, then what evidence is there that it's happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jukes Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 I'm sorry Cyclone but that's not close enough to an explanation for me so I will refer you back to the amoeba and request an explanation of why they don't just gobble up their nearest amoeba neighbour. The kill switch is my shorthand, not an actual thing. Re cuckoos, The cuckoo is still an unsolved question and I'm aware of imprinting but it is still only a very convincing but definitely unproven theory and your further research will produce experiments where imprinting has failed to take place convincingly by something as simple as switching out the host species. Jukes x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Phanerothyme is absolutely correct but not because of how I think she means it. Our achievements probably haven't stunted our development as a species but it isn't because of anything that we do as a species as we don't have that kind of control in the space of a few years. You need to think about the huge amounts of time that pass for evolution to do its work and then you need to be one of the lucky 0.0001% of species that don't become extinct or trapped in an evolutionary dead end. This Richard Dawkins lecture is a really good introduction to how evolution works. Jukes x My rather snide comment was really directed at the thread title "Has our achievements stumped our evolution?" - we won't make the next evolutionary leap until we can get our particples right and avoid the use of sporting metaphors. I think humans are in a state of meta-evolution. The advent of language and then, shortly afterwards, extrasomatic knowledge has allowed humans to effect colossal environmental changes (irrigation, farming, cities, desertification, etc.) requiring them to adapt their minds and their ideas, rather than their biology. Like biological evolution, it's not a teleological process. There's no end point, no goal and no direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 The elite scientists yes they are curious, but most can't see past their noses. Care to give an example of scientists not looking past their noses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futures Red Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Care to give an example of scientists not looking past their noses? Seriously, do you expect me to reply to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Seriously, do you expect me to reply to that? Nope. Because you don't have a meaningful answer. You've thrown out a false accusation and now you're refusing to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Futures Red Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Nope. Because you don't have a meaningful answer. You've thrown out a false accusation and now you're refusing to back it up. I don't personally need to back it up and self assured and not insecure. I think I'll let you all just get on with going round in circles. Your all like a dogs trying to chase your own tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now