RE: Is belief in God a natural instinct ?
November 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
"Fitting" data into a pattern can be the first -and most minor- step in forming a theory, that would be the hypothesis ( and the less "fitting" that has to be done by the person proposing it the better..btw). Whether or not we fit data into a pattern is meaningless unless we can demonstrate the accuracy of the data and the existence of the pattern exterior to our own proposition. This is where the heavy lifting (and overwhelming majority of scientific endeavor) occurs. To be completely blunt, the scientific method is what it is precisely to insulate us from this pattern seeking bullshit that leads some of us to conclude wizards in the absence of wizardry. What you seem intent on ignoring, in your ill-thought out comparison, is that the only similarity between the two is that "human beings do stuff"..........
None of this applies to evolution itself, of course...because it requires no hypothesis. It is an observation. "Studying evolution" in it's broadest sense, since you have been so broad, is a simple act of gathering specimens. Whether or not a pattern exists or the observed change -that we call evolution- is random, or whether the data fits either scenario is another thing entirely. That would be the "by" header in "Evolution by Natural Selection", for example.
So no, John, it isn't a big part of either studying evolution....or proposing it's various mechanisms. But I love how your statement went from "a big part" to "involves" in one post. Which one of these two would you like to explore more thoroughly? I think I've explained why it's not a big part...and how little involvement it has (if any, it depends on the specifics) as a consequence of doing so. If I haven't, feel free to dig deeper.
None of this applies to evolution itself, of course...because it requires no hypothesis. It is an observation. "Studying evolution" in it's broadest sense, since you have been so broad, is a simple act of gathering specimens. Whether or not a pattern exists or the observed change -that we call evolution- is random, or whether the data fits either scenario is another thing entirely. That would be the "by" header in "Evolution by Natural Selection", for example.
So no, John, it isn't a big part of either studying evolution....or proposing it's various mechanisms. But I love how your statement went from "a big part" to "involves" in one post. Which one of these two would you like to explore more thoroughly? I think I've explained why it's not a big part...and how little involvement it has (if any, it depends on the specifics) as a consequence of doing so. If I haven't, feel free to dig deeper.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
