Question Your Beliefs...

[SteyrAUG]

Well yeah, depending on your definition it isn't ethical to eat meat, wear animal skins, step on bugs, etc.

My point was merely that he has espoused some very unusual views, some of them really out there. Living in a country that was built at the expense of fellow human native tribes I find the idea of not colonizing a planet (assuming it could be made habitable) due to the presence of microbial life laughable.

Depending upon one's definition it would also be unethical to eat plants as they are also life. So an ultra ethical person would starve and die. Sadly nature doesn't seem to be designed with ethics in mind so I'm pretty much right there with you.

[chadbag]

The notion of intelligent design by way of evolutionary theory is not all that bizarre of a concept as creation by this mechanisim allows humanity to have a coherent foundation on which to build science, and "progress" which will invariably lead to decadency, separation from God and our downfall

God would have created a real mess if he created Adam and Even and provided them with an iPod and Chevy Volt. What is coherent to non-linear time omnipotence can not be coherent to a mortal being.

For those of us with head colds, would you mind translating?

[rickrock305]

Sorry, I disagree. My major was Aerospace Applied Science (aka physics as they apply specifically to aerodynamics) and I'm very well versed in the Scientific Method and theory. A "theory" is inferior to a "law." A theory is simply a plausible guess based on known evidence, but it's not proven and always comes second to known laws. If it was proven, it would be called... a law. It's not, nor can it ever be unless we invent a time machine and go back to see what actually happened.

your explanation seems flawed.

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

[Skyyr]

your explanation seems flawed.

As I attempted to clarify above, I'm not referring to a scientific "theory" (as in a proven function), I'm talking about literal theory. It just so happens that Evolution has "theory" in it's name, but I'm not referring to the definition of the "theory" in theory of evolution; I'm simply stating it's nothing more than a literal theory because it can never be verified. There's also a distinct difference between a theory in science and a scientific theory. One is simply guesswork, the other is accepted as fact to explain why things behave the way they do.

For example, mathematical theory is a proven field of mathematics and science. It's called "theory" because it's used to explain how the function(s) in question are supposed to interact without specific case study. Just because it's called a "theory" doesn't mean it's not verified - it is.

Evolution, on the other hand, might be a "scientific theory," but by definition, it can never be proven because nothing has ever been observed nor ever can be observed to prove it. It's pure conjecture. The only way to prove Evolution would be to take extensive data captures from today's world, seal it for 100 million years, and then compare it against data gathered by scientists in that future day and age. It's never going to happen anywhere, anytime in the foreseeable several million years, so for all intents and purposes, it's unverifiable. Sure, you might be able to deduct from fossil records, and dating methods, etc. but you can never fully verify that it actually exists. That it was makes it a literal theory and second place to hard, cold, verifiable data.

I'll say it again: arguing otherwise is semantics.

[SteyrAUG]

Evolution, on the other hand, might be a "scientific theory," but by definition, it can never be proven because nothing has ever been observed nor ever can be observed to prove it. It's pure conjecture. The only way to prove Evolution would be to take extensive data captures from today's world, seal it for 100 million years, and then compare it against data gathered by scientists in that future day and age. It's never going to happen anywhere, anytime in the foreseeable several million years, so for all intents and purposes, it's unverifiable. Sure, you might be able to deduct from fossil records, and dating methods, etc. but you can never fully verify that it actually exists. That it was makes it a literal theory and second place to hard, cold, verifiable data.

I'll say it again: arguing otherwise is semantics.

Except of course on the microbial level where we constantly observe it. And of course with the extensive fossil record for various species that we do have showing dependency and of course DNA evidence showing the relation of various species to one another.

But sure if you are willing to ignore all of that, I suppose you could still qualify it as only a "theory." Arguing otherwise is just wanting reality to be something else.

[BrianS]

Depending upon one's definition it would also be unethical to eat plants as they are also life. So an ultra ethical person would starve and die. Sadly nature doesn't seem to be designed with ethics in mind so I'm pretty much right there with you.

So then what reasoning and evidence did Sagan apply to arrive at this belief of his?

[SteyrAUG]

So then what reasoning and evidence did Sagan apply to arrive at this belief of his?

Well that is a somewhat different discussion.

Ethics are not scientific but tend to be feeling based. A persons ethics can be completely separate from their science. You can have a person with 100% flawless science and horrible ethics and you can have a person with impeccable ethics who has zero understanding of science.

And you really can't impeach Sagan's scientific credibility because his ethics are (in the opinion of some) divorced from reality. It's kinda like rejecting a persons religious beliefs because they are poor at money management.

Sagan had some high minded, and I'm sure in his opinion "noble", ethics due to his knowledge of science, but that doesn't make his ethics "scientific."

[BrianS]

Well that is a somewhat different discussion.

Your OP was about a "method of evaluating virtually any idea or concept for validity" using Sagan's book.

"It is nothing more than a critical evaluation of many popular ideas such as UFOs, religious beliefs, certain forms of therapy and analysis and various new age concepts."

I find that to be highly amusing. A guy authors a book offering a critical evaluation of "new age concepts" when himself held the belief that the needs of microbial organisms superseded the needs of the human race and our future colonization of other planets in the solar system. This belief is entirely in the ballpark of a religious belief or a new age concept.

So no, it isn't a different discussion, it is what you said the book was about.

[chadbag]

I like turtles.

I just got this (not sure if it is the same reason you put it but funny nevertheless)

[SteyrAUG]

Your OP was about a "method of evaluating virtually any idea or concept for validity" using Sagan's book.

"It is nothing more than a critical evaluation of many popular ideas such as UFOs, religious beliefs, certain forms of therapy and analysis and various new age concepts."

I find that to be highly amusing. A guy authors a book offering a critical evaluation of "new age concepts" when himself held the belief that the needs of microbial organisms superseded the needs of the human race and our future colonization of other planets in the solar system. This belief is entirely in the ballpark of a religious belief or a new age concept.

So no, it isn't a different discussion, it is what you said the book was about.

Well here is how it is different.

For some concepts it is possible to come up with multiple and varied solutions all of which would be correct depending upon personal values. We may not find them realistic, but for some people they remain correct.

Thinking it is unethical to influence a foreign environment isn't really the same as believing UFOs regularly visit us and have sex with captured humans.