Origin of Life (Pt2) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 17:37 (5378 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 17:43

Davd & dhw,-> > 
> > "Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man." Bertrand Russell
> > 
> > "It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast." Konrad Lorenz
> > 
> > "Science becomes dangerous only when it imagines that it has reached its goal." George Bernard Shaw
> 
> 
> Apropos of the above quotes is to remember the bombastic certainty of Dawkins and the evolution of whales from land animals, presented here awhile ago. I know George grinds his teeth every time I enter something from Uncommon Descent but this review of whale evolution is well researched with many cogent entries from the accepted peer-reviewed bunch:
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/whale-evolution-darwinist-trawlers-ha... 
> And I can add a pithy quote of my own: "Theoretical science is always uncertain science". David Turell-It was exactly the "exactness" of surety that people like Dawkins professed that made me deeply question the heretical (to atheists) notion that atheism is a faith. It was a difficult--very difficult--notion to face, but when we're talking about a universe built on inference, it is a fact that the further away [EDIT] you reason FROM fact the less certain one can be--by nature. Add to that the fact that science--however useful--is a system of building models, and just because a model fits incredibly well by no means guarantees that it IS the correct model. Actually Stenger's general idea of Physics as a descriptive language directly weakens any attempt to posit scientific inferences as actual fact. -All scientific data still requires interpretation, and because we don't have direct access to what really happened, science will always be a great blob of uncertainties built upon precious few truths. -This is what made me tolerant of religion, after having spent the greater portion of my life hating it to the point of racism. While to a greater or lesser extent you can judge the validity of a religion by the degree it denies truth for faith, the same thing can be said of those people that adopt science as a belief system instead of what it actually is--a tool. -I'm beginning to see that some postmodern criticisms of science actually have some merit.-[EDIT]
What drives me in this search? The ancient drive for truth. If I hold one virtue dear, it is that I hold truth above all else--in as many things as possible. Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth. So, when I question aggressively, or seem to act the fool, it is in some way related to trying to get to THAT goal, and I greatly sense that dhw is in exactly the same place. I see the inferences and recognize them as inferences and not bona-fide fact. This prevents me from making a great many decisions that many other people take for granted.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"