Read this well
My LiveJournal has two purposes. First, it is intended to be a news feed for my daily life to help keep in touch with as many of my friends as possible. Second, it is intended to be a forum where I can express my opinions and values; in this forum, I would like for these opinions and values to be discussed, extended, and challenged. However, several discussions, both recently and in the past, have convinced me of the need to explicitly define the rules under which discussion in my LiveJournal will take place.
The following is a list of statements that, except where explicitly stated, must be considered premises (or at least, not contradicted) in all discussion in my LiveJournal. I have listed reference arguments and materials for most of these statements.
These are the strictures under which discussion may take place. Unwarranted violations will incur warnings; repeated violations will incur bans.
These premises may be challenged only under the following circumstances: first, read and understand (or be passingly familiar with) the background references I have provided; second, glance over the preceding discussions in my LiveJournal; third, e-mail me directly with a convincing argument. If it promises to be productive, I will make a public post on the topic and bring it up for discussion. Only if I am convinced by the arguments in (or referenced by) that discussion will I remove the premise from the list.
By the way, this post is closed as a sort of permanent list page and will be updated as discussions flesh out my position or indicate new points I should address. Use this post for all discussion of the above premises, under the first and second conditions above.
The following is a list of statements that, except where explicitly stated, must be considered premises (or at least, not contradicted) in all discussion in my LiveJournal. I have listed reference arguments and materials for most of these statements.
These are the strictures under which discussion may take place. Unwarranted violations will incur warnings; repeated violations will incur bans.
- Science is not a religion. A scientific theory is True™ if it has more predictive power to explain available evidence and contributes more information to future scientific investigation than any known alternative, and False™ if it is contradictory to sufficiently large quantities of empirical evidence. Only objective empirical evidence, preferably acquired through controlled testing, can validate or disprove a scientific theory. The scientific method will, in the long run, inevitably produce a superior (i.e., more accurately predictive of future empirical information) explanation than any other method.
References: I recommend Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, edited by Martin Curd and J.A. Cover, and Theory and Evidence, edited by Clark Glymour.
Previous Discussion: Here, here, and (incidentally)here.
- Evolution (synthetic neo-Darwinism or a similar contemporary theory) is True™. Abiogenesis and panspermia are Almost True&trade, i.e., both are statistically improbable but consistent with the available evidence, and no direct test has disproved either. I favor abiogenesis, as it has more explanatory power.
- Divine intervention, where a god is not an empirically observable living entity but intervenes in physically comprehensible methods, is scientifically equivalent to abiogenesis.
- The young-earth hypothesis, and all dependent geological theory, is False™. Conversely, contemporary old-earth geological theory, including plate tectonics, is True™.
- Intelligent Design, as presented by the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design Network, is False™. It is also Bunkum™ and Hooey™. Any proponents of intelligent design theory that wish to have their view taught in science classes must first face the public scrutiny of the scientific establishment. Their theories will be taught when they become scientifically acceptable and supercede, or at least compare favorably with, evolution.
Previous Discussion: Here, and here.
- Abortion immediately after fertilization is not ethically equivalent to the murder of a child. Abortion immediately before birth is ethically equivalent to the murder of a child. Everything in between is open for discussion.
Previous Discussion (with references): Here, here, and here.
p.s. I am not necessarily opposed to the murder of children. (That's a joke. Maybe.)
- The First Amendment, and specifically the Establishment Clause, mandate both freedom of and freedom from religion. The federal government of the United States, and all state governments, are prohibited from funding any religious activity whatsoever; any disbursements to religious organizations for civic purpose must be undertaken under the strictest of scrutiny. Overt displays of religion are forbidden in public buildings.
References: Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, for one. Americans United for Separation of Church and State list significant court decisions on school prayer, publically funded vouchers for religious schools, and displays of the Ten Commandments, whose opinions are quite significant.
Previous Discussion: Here, here, here, and here.
These premises may be challenged only under the following circumstances: first, read and understand (or be passingly familiar with) the background references I have provided; second, glance over the preceding discussions in my LiveJournal; third, e-mail me directly with a convincing argument. If it promises to be productive, I will make a public post on the topic and bring it up for discussion. Only if I am convinced by the arguments in (or referenced by) that discussion will I remove the premise from the list.
By the way, this post is closed as a sort of permanent list page and will be updated as discussions flesh out my position or indicate new points I should address. Use this post for all discussion of the above premises, under the first and second conditions above.