>
>I understand your point. I think what is missing is this: we all operate from
>a venue of common experience. Without that, science itself could not exist.
>The use of "common sense" is merely an outgrowth of that shared experience.
>While it sounds pedestrian, it really is as much a part of the scientific
>method as anything else. Indeed, we couldn't operate without it. We woudn't
>know what questions to ask or tests to perform, etc.
>
This is an interesting comment. It might be interesting to hear some
opinions of practicing scientists regarding the relative importance of
common sense or shared common experience.
It seems to me that the common sense and shared experience of
most practicing scientists, especially those knowledgeable in the
appropriate fields (i.e. those with the longest robes), is that evolution
is a fact. So, it seems to me that you really should be giving us
reasons for resisting the inherent inertia of shared experience and
common sense rather than arguing that we should just go with the
flow.
Also, shared experience and common sense are not the same things.
I would imagine that the common experience of most physicists
is that common sense doesn't take you far in quantum mechanics.
This goes for many other fields as well. Sometimes nature simply
does not follow common sense. As Yockey is fond of saying
"The lumpenintelligentsia is very upset that they were not consulted
when the universe was created"
I could say further that the strongest validation of a theory comes
when it makes a non-common sensical prediction which is later
verified by experiment. Einstein comes to mind on this score.
Well, I could go on and give a few anecdotes from my own personal
experience but I'll spare you that and just say that my opinion is
that common sense can be very useful in many situations and
practically useless (or even detrimental) in others. Generally
speaking it seems most useful in routine situations that are already
well understood and possibly counter-productive when working in
new areas.
We have a great deal of experience with and knowledge of intelligent
designers capable of making watches. Very little with intelligent
designers capable of making turtles. Watches and turtles are not
the same, even my daughters can tell the difference. Our experience
and common sense may tell us a great deal regarding the design and
manufacture of watches, very little when it comes to turtles.
Finally, let me say that while common sense is certainly useful in
some situations it would be a definite non-starter when it comes
to resolving differences. One fellow says his common sense tells
him one thing, another guy says no your wrong because my common
sense tells me this. And this is exactly the situation when it comes
to figuring out whether turtles are intelligently designed.
JB:==
>Now, the ID argument, as I see it, goes like this: Using our common
>experience, we are by and large able to detect those systems which are
>designed and those which are not (that's really all Paley's argument, still
>potent for me, is). And Darwin himself lends validity to the argument, as I've
>posted elsewhere. It SEEMS well beyond experience to think this was all
>unguided (remember, it was the liar Iago who spouted, "I know not 'seems'!")
>
>Thus, the lack of a naturalistic explanation does NOT leave us merely with the
>reasonable conjecture that the explanation hasn't been found yet; we operate
>from our common sense and experience about complexity...it seems unreasonable
>to even SUPPOSE that such an explanation WILL be found. Sure, it is possible;
>but so is ANYTHING possible...Madonna might become a nun
>someday...super-intelligent, pan-dimensional mice may be running our entire
>show (see Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy). In this sense, nothing
>is EVER certain. Our old friend Pascal agrees:
>
I think you are neglecting one of my previous points. Over the past few
years I've gained some experience in complex nonlinear systems. From
my experience it seems unreasonable to suppose that our feeble minds
will be able to unravel the physical explanation behind extremely
complex phenomena. And so I fully expect that the explanation for
some complex phenomena may never be found. You have to come
up with some argument for ID other than "your loss is my gain".
>"Thus the skeptics insist, everything is open to doubt. But the same applies
>to our ordinary experience. No one can be sure whether he is sleeping or
>waking, because when we are dreaming we are firmly convinced we are awake."
>
>But can't live that way. And I think evolution is kind of a walking
>dream...the people in it are certain they are awake, which is going to make
>their eventual waking a very disturbing occurrence.
>
Wake up Jim!! you're dreaming ......
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |