Don’t scientists study ontology anymore? Did they ever?
Sal made a comment that I’ve been thinking about for some time, but I don’t know how to make it into a post. So I think I will just throw it out and see what kind of feedback I would get from this obscure blog. First here is what Sal wrote.
Then I realized, well, gravity can’t be seen directly either, neither magnetic fields.
The study of physics has been bothering me for quite a long time. Honestly, I’ve never been comfortable with the Copenhagen interpretation, but my apprehensiveness goes beyond this. At the core of all our human research into physics there is a lack of acknowledgement of the ontological nature of energy. For instance, what is gravity and magnetic field? Sure we can measure it. We feel and see its affect on objects and everyday life, but what is it ontologically. When gravity stretches across the solar system in the vacuum of space, what is being transmitted? Can we measure it en route? What is its substance? Furthermore, why does gravity exist? In other words, what is intrinsic about mass that produces gravity?
I will appear on this show very briefly on August 13, 2006. Check local listings:
For some reason Cornell’s Evolution and Design blog will not allow me to post there. I’ve never posted there before so I don’t know if it is this post or just my IP that it doesn’t like. In any case here is my rebuttal to PvM and nmatzke.
The Pandas visiting the Cornell weblog have given me a peak at their poker hand. Ask yourself, “if the Pandas are winning the debate, why should they complain to stop it? Why should they not utterly keep humiliating the IDers in the eyes of the students and the university?”
Answer: they’re takin’ a whuppin’ and they know it
Allen MacNeill posted this comment over at Uncommon Descent.
Thompson himself did not present hypotheses that were empirically testable (sound familiar?)
The same concept is applied to the parallel evolution of marsupial and placental mammals: similar environments and subsistence patterns place similar selective constraints on marsupial and placental mammals in different locations, resulting in strikingly similar anatomical and physiological adaptations, despite relatively non-homologous ancestry.
Unfortunately there is absolutely not a single shred of empirical evidence to support this story. (sound familiar?)
I am thinking of applying for this
It seemed I sparked some curiosity with my offer to Allen MacNeill. So I’m opening a thread for others with polite questions to pose them to me.
I’m doing this out of the goodness of my heart. So abusive questions will be subject to deletion or disemvowelment.
If there is any question you would like to ask me about, feel free. It doesn’t have to be about ID directly. For example, you can ask, “Sal, do you get any money for your advocacy of ID?”
Or, “Do you believe ID is really true?” “Do you want ID in public schools?”
You may be surprised at my answers.
Teleological has three authors, and is a lot smaller place than Uncommon Descent, and generally under the radar screen. I’m not under the same constraints here as I am at Uncommon Descent.
I’m doing this to put to rest questions people may have, and also, you seem someone who is genuinely curious to learn more about the IDers and their ideas.
You strike me as the most collegial and scholarly critic of ID I’ve encountered. I’m sorry I have not had the privilege of taking your classes.