Creationism--Proof ?

[damocles]

Speaking of fallacious arguments, your saying that it is "impossible to prove that something does not exist" only reiterated questor's point. It's tautology. And since it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, you must, if you are to be truly objective, recognize the possibility that an intelligent designer does exist… particularly when hard evidence points in that very direction. To reject the possibility out-of-hand is to remove evolution from the roster of scientific theories and add it to the roster of faith-based theories. There's simply no escaping that conclusion.

 

In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, the ACLU brought in key witness philosopher of science Dr. Robert Pennock, who testified that science is a search for natural explanations of natural phenomena--a limitation known as methodological naturalism.

 

Now, think carefully about that statement, and follow it through. Pennock testified that science is limited to the search for natural explanations of natural phenomena. Under that limitation, doesn't that require that the natural explanation will always consist of a natural phenomena? Answer: YES. But isn't natural phenomena in general what they're trying to find a natural explanation for in the first place? Doesn't the natural phenomenon which is offered as a natural explanation for natural phenomena need a natural explanation as well? And won't THAT explanation be a natural phenomenon, too? If you're not dizzy by now, you're not paying attention.

 

Would one of you who agrees with methodological naturalism please explain to me how you expect to get out of this box?

 

And would someone like to kindly explain to me why you think it's a good idea to teach children that circular reasoning is "science"?

 

Logic error.

 

The box as you define it from this statement.

 

In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, the ACLU brought in key witness philosopher of science Dr. Robert Pennock, who testified that science is a search for natural explanations of natural phenomena--a limitation known as methodological naturalism.

 

and as you explain it.

 

Now, think carefully about that statement, and follow it through. Pennock testified that science is limited to the search for natural explanations of natural phenomena. Under that limitation, doesn't that require that the natural explanation will always consist of a natural phenomena? Answer: YES. But isn't natural phenomena in general what they're trying to find a natural explanation for in the first place? Doesn't the natural phenomenon which is offered as a natural explanation for natural phenomena need a natural explanation as well? And won't THAT explanation be a natural phenomenon, too? If you're not dizzy by now, you're not paying attention.

 

This proceeds from an assumption that scientists and rational men suffer from http://solipsism and that they limit themselves to that frame of reference.

 

Under that false assumption you;

-state that science consists of set A(natural explanation)

-to explain set A(natural explanation)

 

This is not what Penrock said. You imposed your own intepretation(like a lawyer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

 

He was talking about methodology.

He said that we find set A(natural phenomena)

And we investigate it methodically using a disciplined technique(its called modelling, scientific method, or developing a hypothesis to explain set A through testing by refutation.)

That hypothesis if it survives the process of refutation becomes Set B(explanations;subject to immediate change upon refutation.)

A does not equal B. The explanations B have to be perfectly reflexive to A be the same as A.

 

Now what you want to say is that methodological naturalism rejects supernaturalism because it refuses to recognize or investigate the possibility that there is something that might be beyond the investigative boundary.

 

That is where the http://Solipsism comes in.

 

Solipsism (from the Latin ipse = "self" and solus = "alone") is the epistemological belief that one's self is the only thing that can be known with certainty and verified (sometimes called egoism). Solipsism is also commonly understood to encompass the metaphysical belief that only one's self exists, and that "existence" just means being a part of one's own mental states — all objects, people, etc, that one experiences are merely parts of one's own mind. Solipsism is first recorded with the presocratic sophist Gorgias (c. 483-375 BC) who is quoted by Sextus Empiricus as having stated:

 

Nothing exists

Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it, and

Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others

 

Logic error number two.

 

The scientist by training and objective observation believes in the " http://Principle of locality.

 

In physics, the principle of locality is that distant objects cannot have direct influence on one another: an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. This was stated as follows by Albert Einstein in his article "Quantum Mechanics and Reality" ("Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit", Dialectica 2:320-324, 1948):

 

The following idea characterises the relative independence of objects far apart in space (A and :Waldo:: external influence on A has no direct influence on B; this is known as the Principle of Local Action, which is used consistently only in field theory. If this axiom were to be completely abolished, the idea of the existence of quasienclosed systems, and thereby the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically in the accepted sense, would become impossible.

Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the assumption that all objects must objectively have their properties already before these properties are observed. Einstein liked to say that the Moon is "out there" even when no one is observing it.

 

Let me say this so that it is understood in the context.

 

Einstein liked to say that the Moon is "out there" even when no one is observing it

 

If there is god/gods out there, we'll find him/them as he is part of the natural order of things.

How?

By finding his/their little footie prints all over his/their creation.

Thats what the ID crowd has claimed he did.

If he left an observable imprint we will see it, test for it, make refutable predictions to negate it and it(the imprint^1) will show up as it is a part of "http://Nature" .

Otherwise it is pointless to speculate as he will be as far as we are concerned " a non-event".

 

http://Non-event

A non-event is an anticipated or highly publicized event that does not occur or turns out to be anticlimactic or boring. Non-events are disappointing, as they are often much hyped prior to their occurrence.

 

^1 The ID crowd has yet to explain how a deity or an intelligence can design a natural phenomenon(the universe) and yet be independent and beyond the investigation of the phenomenon. Information is information. If the ID crowd present information(for example your post, TroutMac), then rational men can test it(as I do here in this post.).

 

Information is testable no matter what the source.

Or as the military say,"If you can see it, you can hit it."

 

Regards;

[TRoutMac]

Logic error.

 

In summary, the entirey of your message was an artful way of dodging a very basic question.

 

The fact that life exists at all is itself a natural phenomenon, is it not?

 

What methodological naturalism says is that the natural phenomenon of the existence of life can (and should) at some point be explained by something else that is natural, and should never, under any circumstances be explained by reference to the supernatural, and that this is a demand of "science".

 

Now, "phenomenon" is a broad enough term that whatever that natural explanation ends up being can also be called a "natural phenomenon". And so now you're right back where you started, looking for a natural explanation for another natural phenomenon. And when you find that natural explanation, it can be called a natural phenomenon as well and once again, you're back where you started. Under methodological naturalism, science goes precisely nowhere with respect to explaining the origin of life. It just pushes the question back one generation.

 

Once again I ask, because it has not been answered:

 

How does someone who subscribes to methodological naturalism escape this box? When will the natural explanation not be a natural phenomenon?

 

And, again, how is it that circular reasoning can be taught as "science"?

 

As to solipsism, my argument or the argument of naturalists really has no relationship to solipsism. In the interest of some mild humor, I should point out that even solipsists look both ways before they cross the street. And that tells you just about all you need to know about solipsism.

[questor]

Damocles, you said:

'' Information is information. If the ID crowd present information(for example your post, TroutMac), then rational men can test it(as I do here in this post.).

 

Information is testable no matter what the source.

Or as the military say,"If you can see it, you can hit it." ''

 

here are a few phenomenae you might want to ''hit out of the box''

1. what is the sub-atomic or elemental cause of the life force?

2. what is the elemental basis of thought?

3. does the sun spin or rotate? if not, why does the earth both spin and rotate? where

did the force come from to cause the earth's rotation and spin ,but not affect the sun?

these phenomenae can be seen or detected. can we explain them or test them?

[Tormod]

here are a few phenomenae you might want to ''hit out of the box''

1. what is the sub-atomic or elemental cause of the life force?

 

I must say I wonder what this mysterious "life force" is. Is it fundamental to creationism?

 

2. what is the elemental basis of thought?

 

Neurons and electricity.

 

3. does the sun spin or rotate?

 

Both. This is the same thing.

 

these phenomenae can be seen or detected. can we explain them or test them?

 

As for "life force" I would say "no", it's a myth. The elemental basis of thought is not well known. Test the rotation of the sun? Sure...look at it.

[questor]

another interesting concept might be that of chaos. can chaos come from order with no outside interference? order can come from chaos only by some outside agent.

[Tormod]

How does someone who subscribes to methodological naturalism escape this box? When will the natural explanation not be a natural phenomenon?

 

And, again, how is it that circular reasoning can be taught as "science"?

 

What else would you like to label it? Ignorance? Arrogance? Stupidity? Feel free to say it out loud.

 

Human beings are beings of nature. We observe nature, but we are also part of it. That is a circular reasoning we simply cannot escape. Sorry Mac. :Waldo:

[questor]

Tormod, i wonder also what the mysterious life force is. that is why i asked the question.

another way to phrase it may be...at what particulate level does life arise? when you get down below the neutrinos, bosons, etc,where does the thing that means life reside?

i was not aware that neurons and electrons were the most elemental particles. how do they interact to produce a thought?

i misspoke on the spin and rotation . i meant the earth orbits around the sun. what does the sun orbit around? if earth was born of the sun, what force imparted spin and orbit to the earth, and to the sun?

the life force i speak of is merely the presence of life. would you not describe it as a force?

[TRoutMac]

What else would you like to label it? Ignorance? Arrogance? Stupidity? Feel free to say it out loud.

 

Label what, exactly? Methological Naturalism? Perhaps all of those words are good descriptors of it. Thank you for doing the dirty work.

 

Human beings are beings of nature. We observe nature, but we are also part of it. That is a circular reasoning we simply cannot escape. Sorry Mac.

 

First of all, I don't see how that's circular reasoning. We're here, and we can observe things. Big whup.

 

Second of all, it still doesn't answer my question(s). Another artful dodge.

 

Does circular reasoning belong under the umbrella of "science", or not? Can "science" be counted on to discover answers to questions about the natural world if it will tolerate circular reasoning?

[damocles]

Damocles, you said:

'' Information is information. If the ID crowd present information(for example your post, TroutMac), then rational men can test it(as I do here in this post.).

 

Information is testable no matter what the source.

Or as the military say,"If you can see it, you can hit it." ''

 

here are a few phenomenae you might want to ''hit out of the box''

1. what is the sub-atomic or elemental cause of the life force?

 

What life force? Is this something you made up or are you trying to say that life does not correspond to the same physics and chemistry that governs stars and rocks.

 

If you say the latter then you must present a hypothesis where Lifeforce does work that is distinguishable from the four binding forces of the strong nuclear influence, the weak nuclear influence, gravitation, and electromagnetism.

 

What work does Lifeforce do?

 

Otherwise you have labelled something that is not real. Are you a Jedi?(scoff)

 

2. what is the elemental basis of thought?

 

Try this; human response to external stimuli, a self-organized system as a part of our common descent heritage which we developed as a successful survival technique. A means to pass along information.

 

3. does the sun spin or rotate? if not, why does the earth both spin and rotate? where

did the force come from to cause the earth's rotation and spin ,but not affect the sun?

these phenomenae can be seen or detected. can we explain them or test them?

 

Okay Sherlock;

 

Lets see you practice SCIENCE

 

spin http://www.answers.com/topic/spin

 

 

Dictionary

spin (spĭn)

 

v., spun (spŭn), spin·ning, spins.

 

v.tr.

 

To draw out and twist (fibers) into thread.

To form (thread or yarn) in this manner.

To form (a web or cocoon, for example) by extruding viscous filaments.

To make or produce by or as if by drawing out and twisting.

 

To relate or create: spun tales for the children.

To prolong or extend: spin out a visit with an old friend.

To cause to rotate swiftly; twirl.

To shape or manufacture by a twirling or rotating process.

To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion: “a messenger who spins bogus research into a vile theology of hatred” (William A. Henry III).

Slang. To play (a phonograph record or records), especially as a disc jockey.

v.intr.

To make thread or yarn by drawing out and twisting fibers.

To extrude viscous filaments, forming a web or cocoon.

To rotate rapidly; whirl. See synonyms at turn.

To seem to be whirling, as from dizziness; reel: My head spun after doing a cartwheel.

To ride or drive rapidly.

To fish with a light rod, lure, and line and a reel with a stationary spool.

n.

The act of spinning.

A swift whirling motion.

A state of mental confusion.

Informal. A short drive in a vehicle: took a spin in the new car.

The flight condition of an aircraft in a nose-down, spiraling, stalled descent.

 

A distinctive point of view, emphasis, or interpretation: “Dryden . . . was adept at putting spin on an apparently neutral recital of facts” (Robert M. Adams).

A distinctive character or style: an innovative chef who puts a new spin on traditional fare.

Physics.

The intrinsic angular momentum of a subatomic particle. Also called spin angular momentum.

The total angular momentum of an atomic nucleus.

A quantum number expressing spin angular momentum.

phrasal verbs:

spin off

 

To derive (a company or product, for example) from something larger.

spin out

To rotate out of control, as a skidding car leaving a roadway.

 

idiom:

spin (one's) wheels Informal.

 

To expend effort with no result.

 

[Middle English spinnen, from Old English spinnan.]

 

 

rotate http://www.answers.com/topic/rotate

 

 

Dictionary

ro·tate (rō'tāt)

 

v., -tat·ed, -tat·ing, -tates.

 

v.intr.

To turn around on an axis or center.

To proceed in sequence; take turns or alternate: Interns will rotate through the various departments.

v.tr.

To cause to turn on an axis or center. See synonyms at turn.

 

To plant or grow (crops) in a fixed order of succession.

To cause to alternate or proceed in sequence: The coach rotates her players frequently near the end of the game.

adj.

Having radiating parts; wheel-shaped.

 

[Latin rotāre, rotāt-, from rota, wheel.]

 

ro'tat'a·ble adj.

 

Thesaurus

rotate

 

verb

 

To move or cause to move in circles or around an axis: circle, circumvolve, gyrate, orbit, revolve, turn, wheel. See move/halt, repetition.

To do, use, or occur in successive turns: alternate, interchange. See change/persist.

.

The verb rotate has 5 meanings:

 

Meaning #1: turn on or around an axis or a center

Synonyms: revolve, go around

 

Meaning #2: exchange on a regular basis

 

Meaning #3: cause to turn on an axis or center

Synonym: circumvolve

 

Meaning #4: perform a job or duty on a rotating basis

 

Meaning #5: plant or grow in a fixed cyclic order

 

I say objects revolve, precess and orbit when I speak of astronomical objects. I spin tops and I rotate things when I cycle them through.

 

Word games. I don't play them.

 

Now about the origin of rotational energy for the sun and the planets?

 

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/nebular.html

 

Its kinetic energy, pure and simple.

 

Here's something that I want you to answer.

 

Where's the god?

 

Failing that?

 

Go in peace. I'm done with you.

[damocles]

In summary, the entirey of your message was an artful way of dodging a very basic question.

 

The fact that life exists at all is itself a natural phenomenon, is it not?

 

What methodological naturalism says is that the natural phenomenon of the existence of life can (and should) at some point be explained by something else that is natural, and should never, under any circumstances be explained by reference to the supernatural, and that this is a demand of "science".

 

Now, "phenomenon" is a broad enough term that whatever that natural explanation ends up being can also be called a "natural phenomenon". And so now you're right back where you started, looking for a natural explanation for another natural phenomenon. And when you find that natural explanation, it can be called a natural phenomenon as well and once again, you're back where you started. Under methodological naturalism, science goes precisely nowhere with respect to explaining the origin of life. It just pushes the question back one generation.

 

Once again I ask, because it has not been answered:

 

How does someone who subscribes to methodological naturalism escape this box? When will the natural explanation not be a natural phenomenon?

 

And, again, how is it that circular reasoning can be taught as "science"?

 

As to solipsism, my argument or the argument of naturalists really has no relationship to solipsism. In the interest of some mild humor, I should point out that even solipsists look both ways before they cross the street. And that tells you just about all you need to know about solipsism.

 

Pardon me, but that has been answered in full.

 

I said explanation is NOT EQUIVALENT to phenomena.

 

It is information generated separate from the information(phenomena) described; two sets with independent values to each other, not equivalent.

 

In simple English; the explanation for why the apple falls has a separate unique existence from the falling apple.

 

Go in peace. I'm done with you too.

[TRoutMac]

Its kinetic energy, pure and simple.

 

And now, Damocles, you are illustrating exactly my point about methodological naturalism. You've provided a natural explanation for something (a natural phenomenon) by invoking a natural phenomenon known as kinetic energy. Trouble is, you think you're done… but you're not! You still have to explain the existence of kinetic energy. And when you smart off with a natural explanation of kinetic energy, you're going to invoke some other natural phenomenon, which then you'll also have to find a natural explanation for, and so it goes, ad infinitum. It never ends, you'll never really explain how matter and energy came to be. You'll never get to the big picture, you're just chasing your tail. Dogs do that. Should humans? I think not, we're smarter than dogs.

 

Methodological naturalism is a death spiral. A flat spin and there's no ejection seat.

 

I said explanation is NOT EQUIVALENT to phenomena.

 

I think you need to check your definition of "phenomenon":

 

An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

 

That's a broad term. Any natural explanation you produce can be correctly referred to and summarized as "natural phenomenon". Do you have a parachute? The ground's comin' up fast.

 

Now go in peace. I'm done with you.

[C1ay]

Speaking of fallacious arguments, your saying that it is "impossible to prove that something does not exist" only reiterated questor's point. It's tautology. And since it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, you must, if you are to be truly objective, recognize the possibility that an intelligent designer does exist… particularly when hard evidence points in that very direction. To reject the possibility out-of-hand is to remove evolution from the roster of scientific theories and add it to the roster of faith-based theories. There's simply no escaping that conclusion.

And here I think is where the line is getting blurred between science and beliefs. It is in fact impossible to prove that something does not exist and for this reason an intelligent designer is a possibility...along with infinitely many other possibilities people could dream up. Maybe Tinkerbell caused it all to happen. Cause is the question for which no one has an answer for though an evolution is not a theory regarding the cause or why but a theory of how.

 

There are no current theories that address T=0 or before. We think from observable evidence that there was some explosive event that occured which lead to the universe as we see it today. This is simply a theory of how it happened and not why. From a scientific perspective this is a theory that fit the observable data to explain how matter and energy got distributed throughout the observable universe which does not include any evidence of the time that would be T=0.

 

The why on the other hand includes a variety of speculation. Some believe there could have been a creator. Some believe there was the big crunch of existing matter and energy that proceeded a big bang. Some think the universe has existed for eternity. All of this speculation is exactly about T=0 and the scientific perspective of this is that we don't know. We have no evidence to form any scientific hypothesis for any event at T=0. Any and all speculation about that moment in time is just that speculation, not science. None of it is a theory based on any observable evidence because that point in time lies beyond our range of observation. We are currently searching for observable evidence that could be used to form a hypothesis but right now we just don't have it.

 

Evolution is really a seperate issue from the whole beginning of the universe debate. It is simply a theory about speciation, adaptation and acclimation resulting from mutation and natural selection and there is observable evidence to support it as a valid hypothesis. It has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. It is not a theory about the origin of the universe. There is evidence to support it as a theory based on the data and for that reason it does fit the model of science as opposed to beliefs. There is not any observable evidence to claim that it is the origin of life, only that it could explain the observable data we've accumulated.

 

Creationism, considered as an origin of species, and not the origin of the universe, invokes a claim that some supernatural force is responsible for the origin of life and speciation. There is no observable evidence to support any supernatural force as the beginning of anything. Without observable evidence there is nothing to form a testable hypothesis with. We are also unable at the current time to make any testable predictions to support any hypothesis of the supernatural. This prevents any real scientific treatment of beliefs in creationism as the origin of life. That doesn't mean it's not a valid possibility, just that's it's not a valid scientific hypothesis based on observable evidence.

 

Science does not have an answer for how life began. That is not a cop out of any kind, just an honest fact that "we just don't know". There are many things man doesn't know and some of them we may never find answers for. Science will continue to look for the answers it can find knwoing that there are some it will never find. Science will not just make up answers to avoid the search for them, that would not be science.

[questor]

Damocles, i refer you to my post #92 in which i speak to the life force. if you don't want to call it that just call it the elemental area of a cell where life exists. if you could dissect a human cell,where would you find the life? can you tell me the chemical or ionic reactions occurring that produce life? we know the cell needs oygen and nutrients to sustain life. can you explain this process?

[questor]

C1ay, you said:

''Creationism, considered as an origin of species, and not the origin of the universe, invokes a claim that some supernatural force is responsible for the origin of life and speciation. There is no observable evidence to support any supernatural force as the beginning of anything. Without observable evidence there is nothing to form a testable hypothesis with. We are also unable at the current time to make any testable predictions to support any hypothesis of the supernatural. This prevents any real scientific treatment of beliefs in creationism as the origin of life. That doesn't mean it's not a valid possibility, just that's it's not a valid scientific hypothesis based on observable evidence.

 

Science does not have an answer for how life began. That is not a cop out of any kind, just an honest fact that "we just don't know". There are many things man doesn't know and some of them we may never find answers for. Science will continue to look for the answers it can find knwoing that there are some it will never find. Science will not just make up answers to avoid the search for them, that would not be science.''

 

this is a true and reasoned response about life. it is also true about the fact we don't know how the universe began. the difference is that i am not talking about life or evolution, i am talking about the universe as a whole. the bottom line is that there are several possibilities, perhaps the truth may be far different than we conjecture. if one sees no mystery in life or thought, but thinks they are ordinary chemical reactions,then that is his opinion...i don't see it that way and that was the reason for this thread.

[C1ay]

i am talking about the universe as a whole. the bottom line is that there are several possibilities, perhaps the truth may be far different than we conjecture. if one sees no mystery in life or thought, but thinks they are ordinary chemical reactions,then that is his opinion...i don't see it that way and that was the reason for this thread.

Whoever said that there are not numerous possibilities. The possibilities are endless but science has no evidence on the actual cause of any event that resulted in the universe as a whole. There is some observable evidence of the how but not the why.

[damocles]

Definition of phenomenon.

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/phenomenon

 

phenomenon

 

Dictionary

phe·nom·e·non (fĭ-nŏm'ə-nŏn', -nən)

n., pl. -na (-nə).

An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

pl. -nons.

An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.

A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. See synonyms at wonder.

Philosophy. In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon.

Physics. An observable event.

[Late Latin phaenomenon, from Greek phainomenon, from neuter present participle of phainesthai, to appear.]

 

USAGE NOTE Phenomenon is the only singular form of this noun; phenomena is the usual plural. Phenomenons may also be used as the plural in nonscientific writing when the meaning is “extraordinary things, occurrences, or persons”: They were phenomenons in the history of music.

 

Thesaurus

phenomenon

 

noun

 

Something having real, demonstrable existence: actuality, event, fact, reality. See real/imaginary.

One that evokes great surprise and admiration: astonishment, marvel, miracle, prodigy, sensation, stunner, wonder, wonderment. Idioms: one for the books, the eighth wonder of the world. See good/bad.

 

Encyclopedia

phenomenon, an observable fact or event; in philosophy the definitions and uses of the term have varied. In the philosophy of Aristotle phenomena were the objects of the senses (e.g., sights and sounds), as opposed to the real objects understood by the mind. Later, phenomena were considered the observed facts and were contrasted with the theories used to explain them. Modern philosophers have used “phenomenon” to designate what is apprehended before judgment is applied. For Immanuel Kant a phenomenon was the object of experience and was the opposite of a noumenon, the thing-in-itself, to which Kant's categories did not apply.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Medical

phe·nom·e·non (fĭ-nŏm'ə-nŏn', -nən)

n., pl. -na (-nə).

An occurrence, a circumstance, or a fact that is perceptible by the senses, especially one in relation to a disease.

pl. -nons. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.

 

 

 

WordNet

Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The noun phenomenon has 2 meanings:

 

Meaning #1: any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning

 

Meaning #2: a remarkable development

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Wikipedia

phenomenon

A phenomenon (plural: phenomena) is an observable event, especially something special (literally something that can be seen from the Greek word phainomenon = observable).

 

Kant's use of phenomenon

Phenomenon has a specialized meaning in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who contrasted the term 'Phenomenon' with 'Noumenon'. Phenomena constitute the world as we experience it, as opposed to the world as it exists independently of our experiences (thing-in-themselves, 'das ding an sich'). Humans cannot, according to Kant, know things-in-themselves, only things as we experience them. Thus philosophy should concern itself with understanding the process of experience itself.

 

The concept of 'Phenomena' led to a tradition of philosophy known as Phenomenology. Leading figures in this tradition include Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and Derrida.

 

Kant's account of phenomena has also been understood as influential in the development of psychodynamic models of Psychology, and of theories concerning the ways in which the brain, mind and external world interact.

 

Phenomenon in the general sense

In general, apart from its specialized use as a term in philosophy, phenomenon stands for any observable event. Phenomena make up the raw data of science. Phenomena are often exploited by technology.

 

It is possible to list the phenomena which are relevant to almost any field of endeavor, for example, in the case of optics and light one can list observable phenomena under the topic optical phenomenon.

 

The possibilities are many, for example:

 

Anomalous phenomenon (parapsychology)

Biological phenomenon (biology)

Chemical phenomenon (chemistry)

Electrical phenomenon (electricity)

Geological phenomenon (geology)

Hydrological phenomenon (hydrology)

Meteorological phenomenon (weather)

Optical phenomenon (optics)

Physical phenomenon (physics)

Statistical phenomena (statistics)

Thermal phenomenon (thermodynamics)

Some observable events are commonplace, some require delicate manipulation of expensive and sensitive equipment. Some are significant experiments which led to groundbreaking discoveries.

 

There is a class of phenomena which lie outside generally accepted knowledge which knowledgeable scientists tend to discount. They are collected and discussed under the topic anomalous phenomenon.

 

 

See also

Scientific phenomena named after people

 

Quotes

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon" Niels Bohr.

"Scientific theory is a contrived foothold in the chaos of living phenomena." - Wilhelm Reich

"To study the phenomenon of disease without books is to sail an uncharted sea, while to study books without patients is not to go to sea at all." Sir William Osler

 

Disambiguation

Phenomenon is also the name of an album by the rock band, UFO.

Phenomenon is also the name of a 1996 film starring John Travolta and Forest Whitaker.

Phenomenon is also the name of a 1997 album by rapper LL Cool J.

 

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:explanation

 

Definitions of explanation on the Web:

 

a statement that makes something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure or operation or circumstances etc.; "the explanation was very simple"; "I expected a brief account"

thought that makes something comprehensible

the act of explaining; making something plain or intelligible; "I heard his explanation of the accident"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

An explanation is a statement which points to causes, context and consequences of some object (or process, state of affairs etc.), together with rules or laws which link these to the object. Some of these elements of the explanation may be implicit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation

 

a formal method of explanation based on the testing of hypotheses derived from general laws.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/Archaeology/98851.htm

 

an account characteristically telling us why something exists or happens, or must exist or happen. The covering law model of explanation proposed by Hempel has been widely influential, but has many critics. There are controversies over the nature of functional or teleological explanation, over the legitimacy of inferring to the best explanation, and over Dilthey's contrast between scientific explanation and historical understanding.

http://www.filosofia.net/materiales/rec/glosaen.htm

 

Type: object and logical place. A book is carried in a backpack (usually)...just as a document is carried in a portfolio. The other words: clothes are kept in a dresser like books are kept in a backpack, but they are not being toted around. Relics are kept in a museum (usually) but the museum is not the means of transporting the relics like a backpack transports the books.

forms.donnayoung.org/help/vocabulary.htm

 

explains the color coding and roll ups used in the other sheets and explains what is in each sheet (provides an orientation and background information)

http://www.stanford.edu/services/oracle/archives/000426.html

 

Explanations of human actions typically make reference to the agent's reasons or motive for some action. For example, Chris went to the bookstore to buy a text book. Causes are usually cited only for human actions that are not intentional, such as falling. A person's falling might be causally explained by the slipperiness of the road surface, the person having been pushed, or drugged, or having a heart attack. ...

http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html

 

The skill of communication in which an interpretation of information is given and stated to others.

http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/standards/sciglos.html

 

Expert system feature that reveals the motivation, justification, or rationalization of its conclusions by presenting goals, facts, and heuristic rules that affected or determined the choice of conclusions.

amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/browse

 

[L:144] Kant distinguishes two types of explanation, each associated with a different type of definition. Nominal definitions consists of "mere explanations of the name...merely serve to distinguish it from other objects." By contrast, "material explanations or real definitions...are those which are sufficient for a cognition of the object as to its inner determinations by setting forth the possibility of the object out of inner characteristics."

http://www.texttribe.com/text/kant_glossary.htm

 

Gulla (1993:56) refers to an explanation as a description that in practice enables one to understand certain phenomena, being expressed in terms of text, sounds, film, etc. The purpose of an explanation is to reduce the difficulties of understanding a phenomenon, ie, to ease perspective taking.

http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/publ/html/totland/ch071.htm

 

The statutory Government requirement to explain fully the derivation of all policies and proposals (often referred to as the reasoned justification).

plans.torbay.gov.uk/written/cpt17a.htm

 

to solicit or obtain a free ride or series or rides in a vehicle.

http://www.teach-nology.com/worksheets/language_arts/vocab/six/quiz/5/

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:information

 

Definitions of information on the Web:

 

a message received and understood

data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"

knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction

(communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome; "the signal contained thousands of bits of information"

formal accusation of a crime

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Information is a term with many meanings depending on context, but is as a rule closely related to such concepts as meaning, knowledge, instruction, communication, representation, and mental stimulus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

 

College of William and Mary Chancellor Professor of Physics Hans Christian von Baeyer authored a book entitled Information: The New Language of Science. In chapter one (as exemplified in the following excerpt from page ten), the author introduces the book's subject: information.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_(book)

 

In statistics and information theory, the Fisher information (denoted ) is the variance of the score.Fisher information is thought of as the amount of information that an observable random variable carries about an unobservable parameter upon which the probability distribution of depends.Since the expectation of the score is zero, the variance is also the second moment of the score and so the Fisher information can be written

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_(statistics)

 

Information is the result of processing, manipulating and organizing data in a way that adds to the knowledge of the person receiving it.

http://www.orafaq.com/glossary/faqglosi.htm

 

Data that has been processed to add or create meaning and hopefully knowledge for the person who receives it. Information is the output of information systems.

dssresources.com/glossary/dssglossary1999.html

 

Accusatory document, filed by the prosecutor, detailing the charges against the defendant. An alternative to an indictment, it serves to bring a defendant to trial.

courts.delaware.gov/How%20To/court%20proceedings/

 

is data the internal auditor obtains during an audit to provide a sound basis for audit findings and recommendations. Information should be sufficient, competent, relevant, and useful. (420.01.2)

http://www.indiana.edu/~iuaudit/glossary.html

 

That which is extracted from a compilation of data in response to a specific need.

http://www.utmb.edu/is/security/glossary.htm

 

A measure of how surprising something is.

xray.bmc.uu.se/~kenth/bioinfo/glossary.html

 

Organized data which is understood to have significance and meaning.

http://www.christlinks.com/glossary2.html

 

"Data, text, images, sounds, codes, computer programs, software, databases, or the like" (Minnesota Statutes, section 325L.02).

http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/records/electronicrecords/erglossary.html

 

The first paper filed in criminal prosecution which states the crime of which the defendant is accused.

http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/glossary.htm

 

Definitions of Words and Phrases Commonly Found in Licensing Agreements

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/definiti.shtml

 

Data that have been processed and presented in a form suitable for human interpretation, often with the purpose of revealing trends or patterns.

http://www.cbu.edu/~lschmitt/I351/glossary.htm

 

A formal accusation by a prosecutor setting forth criminal charges against a person. An information is used in circuit court.

http://www.courts.state.va.us/glossary_of_court_terms.html

 

Often used very broadly to encompass all ideas, facts, and imaginative works; can also be used to mean a single data element. Whole volumes have been written in the effort to define it satisfactorily. Information broker

http://www.sir.arizona.edu/resources/glossary.html

 

any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts, data, or opinions in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms (OMB Circular A-130).

http://www.gils.net/gilsappb.html

 

A logarithmic measure of improbability. See Marijke's introductory article. The amount of information there is to be known about a system is what constitutes its entropy.

http://www.maxwellian.demon.co.uk/faq/glossary.html

 

Data explicitly described in the manuscripts.

http://www.lib.unc.edu/instruct/manuscripts/glossary/

 

Facts, concepts, or instructions; any sort of knowledge or supposition which can be communicated.

cedar.web.cern.ch/CEDAR/glossary.html

 

is organized data that has been arranged for better comprehension or understanding. What is one person's information can become an other person's data.

home.earthlink.net/~ddstuhlman/defin1.htm

 

Information is the sum of concepts and response rules extracted from a communcation. The maximum amount of information that can be extracted from a communication is treated in the science of "Information Theory".

http://www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/intsyst/glossary.htm

 

The supplier reserves the right to inform the customer of new services and products either by post or by e-mail.

http://www.domn.com/Nav/reservation_cg.asp

 

The Leader is under an obligation to:

http://www.ewindows.eu.org/About/terms/Leaders/

 

The court document that starts the prosecution of a summary conviction offence.

http://www.saskjustice.gov.sk.ca/courts/court_terms/court_terms.shtml

 

Formal charging document issued by a prosecuting attorney (with no grand jury involvement).

mova.missouri.org/cjterms.htm

 

a sworn or affirmed statement made by an informant who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the accused(s) has committed a criminal offence;

http://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/english/definitions.html

 

Messages used as the basis for decision-making.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/myjourneyhome/teachers/glossary.html

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/equivalence

 

equivalence

 

Dictionary

e·quiv·a·lence (ĭ-kwĭv'ə-ləns)

n.

The state or condition of being equivalent; equality.

Mathematics. An equivalence relation.

Logic. The relationship that holds for two propositions that are either both true or both false, so that the affirmation of one and the denial of the other results in contradiction.

 

 

Evidence Drying Cabinets

Protect evidence and personnel from cross contamination.

http://www.misonix.com

 

Police Evidence Lockers

Keyed and Keyless (Many designs) The Law Enforcement Standard

http://www.americanlocker.com

 

Thesaurus

equivalence

 

noun

 

The state of being equivalent: equality, equation, equivalency, par, parity, sameness. See same/different/compare.

 

Political Smack Talk

Exercise your first amendment right Because Everyone has an opinion

http://www.politicalsmacktalk.com

 

Public Forum Debate

Forums, news, information and handbooks for PF debate.

http://www.thepartingshot.com

 

WordNet

 

The noun equivalence has 3 meanings:

 

Meaning #1: a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced

Synonyms: equality, equation, par

 

Meaning #2: essential equality and interchangeability

Antonym: nonequivalence (meaning #1)

 

Meaning #3: qualities that are comparable

Synonyms: comparison, compare, comparability

 

 

I. Phenomena are anything observed.

2 Information is what phenomena transmit between locations in space and that is not phenomena, that is energy, potential or kinetic in some fashion distributed among the four binding forces through time.

3. Equivalence; A=B=C, then A=C

4. Matter may be concentrated energy but time is not. Time is a component of space that allows for information to travel from A to B so that it can be observed.

5. That means A is not equal to B phenomenally, or all phenomena are ultimately local

6. Explanation is a phenomenon, but the information(energy) in it is not.

7. The information(energy) may have an existence all of its own(Einstein's moon, remember?) but it is not detected until transmitted from A to B as C.

 

Word games are nice. Scholasts and lawyers play them well.

 

But the mathematics, call those who say that the transmission of information from phenomenon A to phenomenon B as being equal to A=B=C are wrong.

 

Equivalence to be true would have to be non-local and simultaneous. A=A=A=A etc, such that there would be no information transmitted.

 

And that is nonsense as we observe.

 

One last question.

 

If a god exists, who created him?

[questor]

Damocles, a formidable body of research. your bottom line, man created the God you are referring to. the real questions are: who/what created the universe? and who/what created life ? everything else flows from this.