Zachriel: Scientists point to evidence that the Solar System formed from the natural collapse of a nebula.

Umm it is still called the nebula hypothesis for a reason.

And if science requires evidence then the theory of evolution is in big trouble for there isn't any evidence that shows an accumulation of mutations can bring about the changes required in a universal common descent scenario.

I’m totally for going after the unknowns with all our human resources, but that touch of humility is such an important quality. If everyone had that approach toward nature and each other I think a lot of the culture war conflict would evaporate away. Humility is undervalued.

I think there are strong differences in values which fuel the culture war but I do believe vitriolic exchanges, which make it ugly, would be mitigated by doses of humility. Humility allows for the admission that one might be wrong. While most are willing to acknowledge this in the abstract, few are willing to make specific admissions they perceive as adversely impacting their pride.

fifth monarchy man: So what we think about the telic origin of weather is influenced by what we think about other things like our knowledge of the space that contains it?

Scientists point to evidence that the Solar System formed from the natural collapse of a nebula.

fifth monarchy man: If the universe is the result of telic forces then we would expect the weather to be so as well.

No. We might suppose so. But it is quite possible for the universe to be have been manufactured without every detail being designed.

Zachriel: Your own cite points to examples of complexity arising from non-telic sources, e.g. weather. Complex behavior does not require a telic source.

fifth monarchy man: I find this kind of stament odd in light of the fact that all you mean is you haven't seen any proof that the weather is telic.

Handwaving. Again.

Science doesn't deal in proof, but evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make an argument. I am quite certain that the cited author considers weather a non-telic phenomena. However, as I already pointed out, other examples would suffice to demonstrate the point about the origin of complex behavior, including the general n-body system. Or a weather simulation, for that matter, which clearly shows how a few simple interacting variables can generate complex and emergent behavior.

fifth monarchy man: According to the Gaia Hypothesis the “purpose” of the earths weather is to support life on the planet In exactly the same way that a respiratory system's purpose is to support an animal's life.

You had claimed the Gaia Hypothesis as a telic theory. However, the Gaia Hypothesis posits unconscious, naturally occurring mechanisms.

Zachriel: Most scientists don't consider Gaia a workable scientific hypothesis.

fifth monarchy man: Some do.

The Gaia Hypothesis remains largely speculative at this time.

fifth monarchy man: Is this anti telic board of yours selected by majority vote?

The science of weather is called meteorology. Meteorologists have journals and conferences like other fields of study. They propose and test hypotheses. The ability to propose and test valid scientific hypotheses is the measure of any scientific theory. Sometimes theories remain speculative, awaiting new evidence or new methods of inquiry. Meanwhile, extraneous entities without empirical implications are stripped from working theories. This is all part of the scientific method. Ignoring the evidence, ignoring the meaning of common terms, and refusing to accept simple, testable scientific facts is just non-productive.

Science is a limited perspective on the world. If God created the universe, and minutely controls every aspect of it, we have no scientific evidence of this. That doesn't mean it can't be true. It means the claim is scientifically vacuous. If someone presents a valid theory of how particles interact, and it lacks a telic component, then we say the theory is atelic. If this theory is robust, that is, if it can reasonably predict the entire system's behavior, then we can say with reasonable scientific certainty that the system itself is not influenced by some external agency. That is as far as science goes.

We have every scientific reason to believe that houses are climate control systems manufactured by humans.

So what we think about the telic origin of weather is influenced by what we think about other things like our knowledge of the space that contains it? If the universe is the result of telic forces then we would expect the weather to be so as well.
I agree

Me before:
Before the observation of red shift we had every scientific reason to believe that the universe was eternal.
You :
Did we? I thought it was just a metaphysical predilection.

Most folks thought so, including scientific folks like Einstein. That’s the problem with people we tend to think our present knowledge is based on solid science when often is based only on metaphysics.

So we don't know in some unspecified fmm-manner that gravity causes objects to fall rather than Demons of Downwardation.

Actually you don’t know anything at all really do you. In spite of this fact you continue to say things like

Quote:
Your own cite points to examples of complexity arising from non-telic sources, e.g. weather. Complex behavior does not require a telic source.

I find this kind of stament odd in light of the fact that all you mean is you haven't seen any proof that the weather is telic. A little humility goes a long way.

The Gaia Hypothesis does not posit consciousness or purpose, but homeorhesis as a naturally *evolved* mechanism.

According to the Gaia Hypothesis the “purpose” of the earths weather is to support life on the planet In exactly the same way that a respiratory system's purpose is to support an animal's life.

Do you disagree?

Most scientists don't consider Gaia a workable scientific hypothesis.

Some do. Is this anti telic board of yours selected by majority vote?

Peace

fifth monarchy man: We have every scientific reason to believe that the climate in my house is due to how energy dissipates through it. Does that mean that it's atelic?

We have every scientific reason to believe that houses are climate control systems manufactured by humans.

fifth monarchy man: Before the observation of red shift we had every scientific reason to believe that the universe was eternal.

Did we? I thought it was just a metaphysical predilection.

But as already mentioned, a feature of scientific knowledge is that all claims are considered tentative. So we don't know in some unspecified fmm-manner that gravity causes objects to fall rather than Demons of Downwardation.

fifth monarchy man: Science has a funny way of marching forward and making statements like yours seem foolish

Help yourself. In science, that would just require evidence. (To convince yourself, handwaving apparently suffices.)

Zachriel: Do we know it with absolute certainty? No. But you specifically asked for a scientific answer.

fifth monarchy man: No I asked how you knew and now you admit you don't scientificly or otherwise.

You said, "The whole force of my argument rests on Zach’s contention that we know weather was untelic that is why I asked him if he knew this scientifically." I had suggested you were making a metaphysical statement about the inherent limitations of human scientific knowledge (but you brushed it away).

Zachriel: The scientific understanding of weather is sufficient to reach a very reasonable, albeit tentative conclusion that weather is an atelic system.

fifth monarchy man: Sufficient to whose standards?

Science has a definition.

fifth monarchy man: Have your conclusions been convinceing to those who hold to the Gaia hypothesis?

The Gaia Hypothesis does not posit consciousness or purpose, but homeorhesis as a naturally *evolved* mechanism. Most scientists don't consider Gaia a workable scientific hypothesis.

We have every scientific reason to believe that weather is due to how energy dissipates through Earth's atmosphere and oceans, and there is no scientific evidence of teleology.

We have every scientific reason to believe that the climate in my house is due to how energy dissipates through it. Does that mean that it's atelic?

Before the observation of red shift we had every scientific reason to believe that the universe was eternal. Science has a funny way of marching forward and making statements like yours seem foolish

Do we know it with absolute certainty? No. But you specifically asked for a scientific answer.

No I asked how you knew and now you admit you don't scientificly or otherwise.

We may know 2+2=4, but this is not a scientific claim.

Are you making a scientific claim that the weather is atelic? what sort of pridictions would flow from that claim please list 5.

The scientific understanding of weather is sufficient to reach a very reasonable, albeit tentative conclusion that weather is an atelic system.

Sufficient to whose standards? Is there an anti telic board that complex systems are submitted to that evaluates the evidence and issues rulings?

Have your conclusions been convinceing to those who hold to the Gaia hypothesis?

Zach you are too easy

Peace

If I had the power to sent my last comment to the memory hole, I would. It was off-topic, poorly written and unfair. Please excuse me (even thought I have no good excuse).

TP

fifth monarchy man: It seems I misunderstood and all you were arguing for is that you had no scientific evidence that weather is designed.

I said it was scientifically vacuous.

fifth monarchy man: The whole force of my argument rests on Zach’s contention that we know weather was untelic that is why I asked him if he knew this scientifically.

Just to review, you're conflating two notions: whether we know, or whether we have scientific evidence to support a tentative belief. We may know that we like chocolate, but we may not have scientific evidence to support that belief. We may know 2+2=4, but this is not a scientific claim.

On the other hand, to ask for a scientific claim means to evaluate the claim with the scientific method. A scientific theory is comprised of a number of interrelated, testable assertions concerning the phenomena in question. Part of the scientific method is the rejection of extraneous entities.

We have every scientific reason to believe that weather is due to how energy dissipates through Earth's atmosphere and oceans, and there is no scientific evidence of teleology. Do we know it with absolute certainty? No. But you specifically asked for a scientific answer. The scientific understanding of weather is sufficient to reach a very reasonable, albeit tentative conclusion that weather is an atelic system. To deny that is just perverse. May as well suppose Intelligent Falling.

You wrote…

Humility is undervalued.

I suggest false humility is greatly over-valued, especially by organized religions.

I can boldly and truthfully say "I don't know the Truth".

Can you?

I can boldly and truthfully suggest that science and philosophy (i.e. religion) have different goals and use different toolsets and it is a mistake to try and mix the two (i.e. Gould's NOMA).

Would you agree?

If everyone embraced NOMA with true humility then the words "Under God" wouldn't be in the pledge of allegiance and topics like prayer in school or teaching creationism in science class wouldn't be an issue.

Is this the kind of humility you were thinking would end the culture war, or were you thinking more along the lines of having everyone being in awe of a higher power?