Originally posted by sonship
Darwin's struggles with theistic beliefs were influenced by personal tragedy.

Charles Darwin was a firm believer when he boarded the beagle, but he soon
began to question the christian god (which he considered a tyrant), and was
already something of an agnostic when his daughter died. His struggles with
theistic beliefs, therefore, did not originate in personal tragedy, but in
sceptical thinking.

Originally posted by C Hess
[b]Uh, no, he didn't. Charles worked his entire adult life on the theory
of evolution, for many years before his daughter died. In fact, few people
seem to know that it was Erasmus, Charles grandfather who first presented
the idea of common descent in several of his writings. What was so
ingenious about Charles own work was the idea of natural sel ...[text shortened]... usly because it's unlikely that
random events alone could produce a stable form of speciation.[/b]

I know about his grandfather.

And I also know that a book was just about to be published by someone else dealing with much of the same theorizing. So why not get credit for all the work he had done? So I think publishing of Origin of Species also had the intention of not allowing all of his thunder to be stolen by another scientist.

If you have a counterpoint article, I'll look at it.
Do not just come back and tell me that you recognized some name of some biographer whom you do not trust.

But if you have a second opinion based on some good biographical reasons, I'll be glad to see it.

Death of Child May Have Enfluenced Darwin's Work

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100597929

Article derived from those raving Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians - National Public Radio (NPR) .

Originally posted by sonship
I know about his grandfather.

And I also know that a book was just about to be published by someone else dealing with much of the same theorizing. So why not get credit for all the work he had done? So I think publishing of [b]Origin of Species also had the intention of not allowing all of his thunder to be stolen by another scientist. [/b]

Wallace indeed developed his own version of evolution through natural
selection independently of Darwin, and that's why they wrote a few articles
together, and this is also the reason that Darwin decided to rush the
publication of his own book "origin of species". What this has to do with
Charles theological stance I fail to grasp.

Another interesting if irrelevant note is that Wallace also had a Santa beard.

Originally posted by C Hess
Wallace indeed developed his own version of evolution through natural
selection independently of Darwin, and that's why they wrote a few articles
together, and this is also the reason that Darwin decided to rush the
publication of his own book "origin of species". What this has to do with
Charles theological stance I fail to grasp.

Another interesting if irrelevant note is that Wallace also had a Santa beard.

Look again at your own paragraph.

Uh, no, he didn't. Charles worked his entire adult life on the theory
of evolution, for many years before his daughter died. In fact, few people
seem to know that it was Erasmus, Charles grandfather who first presented
the idea of common descent in several of his writings. What was so
ingenious about Charles own work was the idea of natural sel ...[text shortened]... usly because it's unlikely that
random events alone could produce a stable form of speciation.

Was the info about Darwin's grandfather terribly pertinent to the issue of Darwin's theological stance ?

Just interesting backround in both cases, I think.

Originally posted by sonship
Look again at your own paragraph.

[quote] [b]Uh, no, he didn't. Charles worked his entire adult life on the theory
of evolution, for many years before his daughter died. In fact, few people
seem to know that it was Erasmus, Charles grandfather who first presented
the idea of common descent in several of his writings. What was so
ingenious about Charl ...[text shortened]... win's theological stance more relevant ?

Just interesting backround in both cases, I think.

It's true I digressed a little (I tend to do that when arguing something of
importance to me), but the point of that first paragraph was that his personal
tragedy was not what drove him to develop the theory of evolution, and the
point of my second post was that nor did it drive him away from his religious
conviction. My third post you may consider pedantic, irrelevant drivel.

Originally posted by C Hess
It's true I digressed a little (I tend to do that when arguing something of
importance to me), but the point of that first paragraph was that his personal
tragedy was not what drove him to develop the theory of evolution, and the
point of my second post was that nor did it drive him away from his religious
conviction. My third post you may consider pedantic, irrelevant drivel.

When you spend time writing posts you sometimes want to include something else because otherwise it seems a waste of good time.

I have two questions:

1.) Did you watch Dr. Ross's talk at least half way through, which talk gave rise to this little issue we talk about here ?

2.) Did you read the link that is not long at all ?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100597929

Originally posted by C Hess
It's true I digressed a little (I tend to do that when arguing something of
importance to me), but the point of that first paragraph was that his personal
tragedy was not what drove him to develop the theory of evolution, and the
point of my second post was that nor did it drive him away from his religious
conviction. My third post you may consider pedantic, irrelevant drivel.

I agree that the word "drove" as to drive him to invent a theory would not be too accurate. What I said, simply in the way of giving people an idea of some of the things in that talk, was:

Why Darwin developed his theories to comfort himself after his daugher's death,

If I gave the impression that personal tragedy drove him from beginning to end to invent an Evolutionary theory, that was not my intent.

The article I linked for you said "Influenced" and that is all I meant. And I am pretty sure that is all Dr. Ross meant. It was a factor that Ross felt should be included in our understanding of the man and his ideas.

The NPR article said -
Death Of Child May Have Influenced Darwin's Work .

Originally posted by sonship
I agree that the word "drove" as to drive him to invent a theory would not be too accurate. What I said, simply in the way of giving people an idea of some of the things in that talk, was:

Why Darwin developed his theories to comfort himself after his daugher's death,

If I gave the impression that personal tragedy drove him from beg ...[text shortened]... ideas.

The NPR article said -
[b] Death Of Child May Have Influenced Darwin's Work .[/b]

What I object to is the idea that Annie's death had a huge influence on his
work. The man suffered illnesses his entire life, so his daughter's death
(though it obviously must have affected him personally - and certainly
could have finally destroyed what remnants of christian faith he had)
couldn't really change much about his work. It obviously didn't change the
theory of evolution itself (how could it?), but I also find it hard to believe it
could have changed how much or how hard he worked, since he'd always
buried himself in his work whenever his illnesses allowed. Psychologically, he
was always a very peculiar individual with quite a few problems. His theory
however, stands a testament to his incredible genius, and was the result of
a life-long, hard and diligent work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_health

Originally posted by sonship
What is having some attention to me these few days is the surprising differences in attitudes among philosophers about the nature of what science is and does.

I have a number of categories before me concernings schools of thought of the philosophy of science:

[b]Rational Realism (or Scientific Realism)

Rational Nonrealism ( or ...[text shortened]... onrational Nonrealism [/b]

Leave it to philosophers to analyze something to the Nth degree.[/b]

I did a lot of reading on the philosophy of science in my teens, and occasionally need to brush up on the concepts and labels. The philosophy of science has advanced since then, at least, the terminology has changed. But in looking at the terminology, I guess I tend toward pragmatic instrumentalism and methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism in science, which leaves me silent on the existence or nature of deity when discussing science or its findings.

Originally posted by JS357
I did a lot of reading on the philosophy of science in my teens, and occasionally need to brush up on the concepts and labels. The philosophy of science has advanced since then, at least, the terminology has changed. But in looking at the terminology, I guess I tend toward pragmatic instrumentalism and methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism in science, w ...[text shortened]... es me silent on the existence or nature of deity when discussing science or its findings.

How very unscientific of you.
Where's the margin of error?

Originally posted by C Hess
Really? How?

Could be worthy of thread.
I first came across this a couple of month ago in an article in
the NZ Listener (a very respectable publication) and had a
little gander around the net.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10788449/Why-psychopaths-are-more-successful.html

Originally posted by JS357

I did a lot of reading on the philosophy of science in my teens, and occasionally need to brush up on the concepts and labels. The philosophy of science has advanced since then, at least, the terminology has changed. But in looking at the terminology, I guess I tend toward pragmatic instrumentalism and methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism in science, which leaves me silent on the existence or nature of deity when discussing science or its findings.

The things I am reading about it now I am going over for a second time. It is pretty involved but rather interesting.

I have not settled on a persuasion. But one thing that did make an impression on me was that Science, says one school of thought, is only good for "solving problems."

Ie, How to channel electricity to work for us. A problem solved.
How to make a machine fly in the air. Another problem solved.
How to harness the power of the wind to make energy. Another problem solved.
How to blow your enemy clean away. Another problem solved.
etc.
etc.

This school says Science is only about solving problems for the benefit of society. Making too much about science revealing "truth" about reality, so this school says (if I understand rightly), is assigning a property to science which is not suitable for it.

It is interesting. The book I am reading is Scaling the Secular City by J P Moreland.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I did a lot of reading on the philosophy of science in my teens, and occasionally need to brush up on the concepts and labels. The philosophy of science has advanced since then, at least, the terminology has changed. But in looking at the terminology, I guess I tend toward pragmatic instrumentalism and methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism in ...[text shortened]...
It is interesting. The book I am reading is [b]Scaling the Secular City by J P Moreland.[/b]

Saying science is only good for solving problems, implies that the test of value of something is what that thing is "good for." I do agree with your criticism of people who rally around science being about the revelation of truth (unless one means the pragmatic theory of truth). The science-is-truth crowd is actually reversing the equation by saying that truth is whatever conforms to science.

In my opinion modern science is about collaborative theory development and testing, and engineering is about solving problems using those theories. "What is a theory" needs elaboration, but minimally it is not "a truth" since all scientific theories are provisional and, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, are conditional on the current accepted paradigm.

It seems to me that some Christians use the "conforms to Biblical teachings" theory of truth, which is "assigning a property" to truth that is not suitable to it.

Originally posted by JS357

It seems to me that some Christians use the "conforms to Biblical teachings" theory of truth, which is "assigning a property" to truth that is not suitable to it.

I do not have enough time to spend considering your comment right now.

But some Christians have pointed out that some Christians seem to adopt an attitude that the Bible is inspired if and only if it agrees with modern science theories.

Cambridge Mathematics professor John Lennox's book "Seven Days That Divide The World" is a good book on the subject of Christians' attitudes toward scientific theories of the day in the past and currently.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I did a lot of reading on the philosophy of science in my teens, and occasionally need to brush up on the concepts and labels. The philosophy of science has advanced since then, at least, the terminology has changed. But in looking at the terminology, I guess I tend toward pragmatic instrumentalism and methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism in ...[text shortened]...
It is interesting. The book I am reading is [b]Scaling the Secular City by J P Moreland.[/b]

I don't think "Science" is about solving problems.
It is about discovery.
It is about the "how" and "why".

How to channel electricity to work for us. A problem solved.
How to make a machine fly in the air. Another problem solved.
How to harness the power of the wind to make energy. Another problem solved.
How to blow your enemy clean away. Another problem solved

All your cited problems were solved by technology and engineering.