dogma: it sounds like you are having a problem with epistemology itself, rather than science. You might have a quarrel with epistemology itself- why does anyone take any perception or belief over any other belief? What is the 'standard of proof' or means of verification? How does one determine the truth of certain beliefs or theories? How does one know what one knows? How does one know what one thinks he knows is actually true and knowledge?
Those are all philosophical questions. Your problem with the lack of convincing seems to be an epistemological one rather than a metaphysical one- such as how the evolutionary process is explained. It's unsatisfactory method of verification is not a conceptual one.
When we get down to it, there is always an amount of skepticism. All we know is that we know [something]. However, it is most rational to proceed from the best evidence, and the explanation, and evidence, seems to make the evolutionary explanation the most believable. It is just as logically acceptable as many other beliefs or theories, but it is most rational to act in accordance with the best evidence, typically empirical observations in this case.
He or she might conclude based on the fact that his/her hypothesis is- more explanatory, more logical, has more empirical evidence/data, contradicts other theories/explanations less, is more testable, more in line with intuition, et cetera.
How does she come to the conclusion that her hypothesis is- more explanatory, more logical...? Well, again, that is where this turns into an epistemology question.
So, despite how problematic evolution seems to be (epistemologically- you haven't really explained why you don't like it conceptually), it also seems to have the best evidence, and is the most rational belief to hold.
I don't think any theory declares itself the best or only way something occurred. It is an explanation, not the explanation, and it is a theory- something based on repeated observation that coincides with a line of reasoning postulated). It is the correct explanation because it is the best one, not because it is the only logically remaining one.
Hmmmmm.... hmmmmm... you may have a point here (I'm not trained in philosophy and know that to understand the difference between epistemology and metaphysics is hard).
Let me try to explain my thinking more here. Let me give you some background to give you a flavour of how my thinking has developed. So from childhood to around 15-6, I always wanted to be scientist (there was a brief period when I fell in love with English Lit and that still carries through now, but I never really pursued it so I'm going to ignore). I always thought maths was boring and just a bit crap really. A necessary evil to do proper, more interesting science properly. Then I started reading proper maths, rather than just number crunching.
The axiomatic logic on which maths is based has such a deep elegance. Let's forget Godel's incompleteness theorems and all that entails for one second (it's important - it shows there are inherent limitations in our golden standard of maths and pushes back on our concept of proof - but it clouds the issue). Something just clicked - all of those things which people take for granted - what numbers mean, what it means for something to be continuous, how equations come to be solved, suddenly I got to understand something. I mean
really understand something. Once something is proved in mathematics, it takes a lot to revoke that proof. How many other human endeavours can claim that? Some of the earliest discoveries in mathematics still hold today as they did thousands of years ago when first discovered.
At the same time of this I was going through my own crisis with God. Let's not go there - it's highly personal - but yeah, I admit that I went through a period of huge scepticism. I went as far as revoking my religion... that lasted about 3 hours I think. Hated it. Felt hollow inside. But I went through that process.
Weirdly, mathematical training really got me thinking about stuff like this. After all, we've all made some pretty important and big statements on this thread. How do we know whether any of them are true or not?
I contend that you can't. My standard of proof in this sense is the strongest - that of axiomatic logic, on which maths is based. Nothing else really comes close. There are of course criticisms, not least that we have not been able to extend this type of thinking to cover all sorts of interesting problems. But that is kinda besides the point.
If you accept the axioms ("these truths are self-evident..."),
then necessarily follows X. Well, then X has to be true. Has to be. No arguments, like we're having here. Or at least, no arguments which are worthwile.
That is why I reject most science - the standard of proof doesn't convince me. That is why I reject some maths too - for instance, there is a lot of statistics which isn't properly explained... it seems like it works, so we take it for granted that it must be true. I don't like that. This is an extreme view. I fully admit that. But I guess that's what makes me the philosophical type.
Going back to evolution, I actually do have a conceptual problem with any theory which comes under its banner aside from the process of verification - it makes little sense that we evolved from apes - but that is my biased belief which I have no rational foundation for. It's based on my religion, I can't deny that. (Believe it or not I try to keep an open mind about things - I just get annoyed when something is called a proof or argument when it just doesn't meet my standard of proof.) Guess I have both a metaphysical as well as an epistomelogical issue with evolution?
So finally, going back to the very point of this thread, why do I believe in God? There isn't that same standard of proof that I say I believe in. I fully accept that. I
believe in God. It's not a justified true belief. I can't explain it rationally, but don't try to either.
An honourable mention must go to NoPoke's post #218. Totally, totally agree with this post. I do not claim that my belief in God is rational. It isn't; it cannot be. But I can't (and don't intend to) pretend that I believe in God, and more than that, believe in the teachings of my religion. And I do contend that variety in species and history of creation can be explained by 'because God made it that way' as opposed to evolution.
Has any of this made sense? Ryanvergel, you've got me thinking. Would love to know your thoughts on the above! (Everyone else can let me know what they think too, obviously)
