Ken Ham believes in Dragons...

BedellBrave said:
Thanks. The video guy offered his answer - one resting upon the presupposition I've stated. And that's fine - everyone has got them. Some are more highly esteemed than others.
Click to expand...

If you mean presupposition as in hypothesis, I have no argument with you. It is just irritating when people try to discredit things by calling them a theory or a hypothesis without understanding the thought, research, study, and experimentation behind such terms (in the scientific community).
 
And, yes, Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist (my personal favorite of the science professions).
 
Dalyn said:
If you mean presupposition as in hypothesis, I have no argument with you. It is just irritating when people try to discredit things by calling them a theory or a hypothesis without understanding the thought, research, study, and experimentation behind such terms (in the scientific community).
Click to expand...

A hypothesis is a bit more developed than what I'm thinking. By presupposition I mean that we have basic beliefs that takes precedence over others and which serve as a criterion for others. It is an idea that others rest upon in the way we construct our thinking. It doesn't have to be fully developed nor deeply reflected upon. Carroll has the presupposition that there isn't an intelligent creator, that what is must be explained by that which is inside his closed system. And therefore he argues for eternal matter with the inherent power of being (my description, not his). There are degrees of these and an ultimate presupposition therefore would be a belief over which no other takes precedence.

One person put it this way:

"A 'presupposition' is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. As used here, a "presupposition" refers not to just any assumption in an argument, but to a personal commitment which is at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as your least negotiable belief and being granted the highest immunity to revision."

Examples of Carroll's hypotheses are inflation & dark energy (demanding dark matter - and btw, notice how this operates as a sort of god of the gaps).

Example of his presuppositions - no intelligent creator
 
BedellBrave said:
A hypothesis is a bit more developed than what I'm thinking. By presupposition I mean that we have basic beliefs that takes precedence over others and which serve as a criterion for others. It is an idea that others rest upon in the way we construct our thinking. It doesn't have to be fully developed nor deeply reflected upon. Carroll has the presupposition that there isn't an intelligent creator, that what is must be explained by that which is inside his closed system. And therefore he argues for eternal matter with the inherent power of being (my description, not his). There are degrees of these and an ultimate presupposition therefore would be a belief over which no other takes precedence.

One person put it this way:

"A 'presupposition' is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. As used here, a "presupposition" refers not to just any assumption in an argument, but to a personal commitment which is at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as your least negotiable belief and being granted the highest immunity to revision."

Examples of Carroll's hypotheses are inflation & dark energy (demanding dark matter - and btw, notice how this operates as a sort of god of the gaps).

Example of his presuppositions - no intelligent creator
Click to expand...

Then you are incorrect in this case. Dark energy, for example, is CERTAINLY not a presupposition. Neither is inflation.
 
Honestly, there is so much science behind both that to call either a presupposition is just wrong.
 
The article I posted earlier deals with the "closed system" of physics. I would say it is also more of a hypothesis.

As for ID, it just isn't science. There is no way for it to be observed or measured or anything that is required for science. It isn't as much a presupposition as that it is an opinion completely separate from the theories and hypothesis out there. In other words, it has nothing to do with the arrow of time or the big bang or evolution or anything like that. It just doesn't matter either way. The only reason it is part of the conversation at all is because of religion.
 
Then neither is belief in the eternality of matter with the inherent power of being science. And even the idea that it is an "arrow of time" entails something beyond physics.

Again that's my point…

And sure it matters.
 
BedellBrave said:
Neither is belief in the eternality matter with the inherent power of being science. And even the idea that it is an "arrow of time" entails something beyond physics.

Again that's my point...
Click to expand...

When we are dealing with science, it matters. It isn't like scientists are saying that ID isn't science so it shouldn't be taught in church. Just science class, because it isn't science. I honestly don't even think YOU think it is science. Do you?
 
Dalyn said:
When we are dealing with science, it matters. It isn't like scientists are saying that ID isn't science so it shouldn't be taught in church. Just science class, because it isn't science. I honestly don't even think YOU think it is science. Do you?
Click to expand...

But some will go on and promulgate their own non-scientific beliefs, ruling out other beliefs that go beyond science, claiming those who believe those transcendent beliefs are close-minded, but they are not. Which in my thinking shows a lack of epistemological self-awareness.
 
BedellBrave said:
But some will go on and promulgate their own non-scientific beliefs, ruling out other beliefs that go beyond science, claiming those who believe those transcendent beliefs are close-minded, but they are not. Which in my thinking shows a lack of epistemological self-awareness.
Click to expand...

And, whether true or not, has nothing to do with science and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom either. Do you think ID is science?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top