Tags for this video have been changed from 'lasik, eye, eww, myopia, nearsightedness' to 'lasik, eye, eww, myopia, nearsightedness, medicine, refractive, surgery, ophthalmology' - edited by mauz15

I got a little off-topic/carried-away rambling about epistemology. And I'll say right off the bat that referring to the two people in my 1+2=3 story as "Scientists" and putting the story in a scientific context was a mistake. It was a distraction from the idea I was trying to posit. Religion is most certainly not directly applicable to the pursuit of science. It may be a lens through which a person can look at what they observe in science should they choose to, but in order to call something "scientifically true," it must be bound to the logical epistemology, founded only on the assumptions of "trust in the reliability of the senses" and "trust in the solidity and constancy of physical reality," which are both inevitable for scientific pursuits. In other words, we have to just go on the premise that this isn't the Matrix, and that "I" am not a lunatic, so to speak. Obviously.

As Blank said (sort of), religion on the whole is stuck in a perpetual state of the "working model" for the believer. A believer might look at the world and never see anything that directly contradicts their beliefs, and by that he may claim to have a "faith knowledge" of these things, but he cannot say they are scientifically sound conclusions as he cannot likely test them.

In at least the Christian faith, we're all living in the "working model" phase until either death, or--if you happen to be a pre-trib or even post-trib millennialist--until "end-times" prophecy begins to be fulfilled. Even then, said prophesied occurrence are really "data" supporting the "working model"... though plainly more obviously. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at least, the only time when a conclusion can finally be made "scientifically" is when "the end" (and consequently the new beginning) occurs, an event that all three religions share to some extent.

As we all know, "working models" are subject to constant re-interpretation and adjustment. Those who refuse to allow for this are going to have trouble explaining what science tells them is almost certainly true. For some reason they are totally convinced that they have perfectly interpreted scripture... which is sadly ironic. Exuberantly religious people need to be sure that they are not so arrogant that they think they understand the Word as well as its Author. I will say though, that some understand it better (read "more correctly") than others. Some of these people are NOT following sound biblical doctrine.


Now, about evolution and natural selection. There is still a solid random factor involved in evolution AND even in natural selection. The non-randomness of it can often be seen as an illusion.

For example, yes, natural selection selects ultimately for not only "who has the most babies," but "who is the most fit." There can be thousands of tiny changes in lower organisms that might make them "more fit" (or "more fertile"). Which changes are made and in what way they change is random. This is a major reason for "genetic drift" and diversification in populations. Now, there are instances, where it is less random, such as when a required change is needed for survival or growth, such as a change in climate or nutritional availability. Those equipped to survive that change in condition will survive, blah blah blah, we know this already, get on with it. The method by which these adaptations occur may be limited, but within that list, it is a random choice and several organisms in the crowd can "choose" differently and consequently diversify. If you want to insist upon calling it non-random, I guess at this point you can, if you at least concede that the "option list" is enormous.

I think it's kind of ironic that if anything in the short term for humanity, our compassion has wound up causing us almost laughable evolutionary problems. For example, if I were born a million years ago as I am, quite nearsighted, I'd likely be dead as soon as that nearsightedness got bad enough for me to screw up and get hurt or eaten or something. Now-a-days more people seem to have poor vision than good vision (genetic traits). We also strain to keep literally everyone alive and well and in the gene pool, no matter what. Morally and Ethically, this is great, but evolutionarily, hehe, not so much.