quote:Part of the problem is that, like experts in many disciplines, scientists seem to often believe that because they work within the discipline, they are also automatically experts on how to define it. In most disciplines, but especially in the case of science, this is not true.
This is a problem only insofar as scientists are not actually experts on how to define science and/or their own disciplines.
When it's being implied/stated that they aren't, that's ... pretty demonstratively untrue.
quote:But beyond that, I'm not going to get into the scientific evidence of this issue because I really don't know it
As much as I'm willing to accept this sort of disclaimer when it's used properly, it rarely is. It's usually used in a context of someone
1. First saying, essentially, 'let's not get into the science,'
2. then, they end up using that to shield the depth of critique that can be leveled against their future assumptions and postulations (exa: "this is what scientists do in response to criticism," "scientists disregard ideas," "scientists are acting under pressure," etc.
In practice, it's essentially saying let's not bother with debate on the science, then debating the science on artificially constrained terms.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB] My complaint is not with a matter of science, but rather with a certain attitude/approach that some people take towards dissent against the scientific community. I'd be happy if this were just an illusion, and if scientists were all totally open-minded towards the issue. Perhaps it is. But I am responding to what I saw in a few scientists I've heard/read giving their thoughts on the issue, as well as what seems to be the attitude of some folks on this forum, given the harsh reaction against OSC's (equally harsh) essay. Consider my thoughts only applicable to those very few (or many) who do hold a dogmatic approach towards the accepted scientific model.
The problem with people like you, is that you expect scientists to be rigorous and self-challenging in their approaches to their disciplines, which good scientists are. You expect scientists to know their fields well and to understand scientific epistemology and spend their time challenging their own assertions and the assertions of others in order to arrive at a greater understanding of the natural world.
THEN, people like you expect scientists to entertain the most dull-headed, backwards, and worn out challenges to their disciplines, and you expect scientists to do this again, and again, and again, as many times as you care to rephrase your questions. And the moment someone gets tired of answering a question that ID people refuse to try and understand, that person is "symptomatic of the dogma of scientific thinking." It's a travesty, the level of dishonesty that is perpetrated in this debate.
Why am I being dogmatic when I say that I have long ago stopped listening to a group of people who quite obviously have no interest in scientific progress, are advancing a religious agenda that does not appeal to me, and who are patently dishonest about their intentions, and spread nothing but lies and lies to cover up those lies, and prevarications to extinguish the least bit of reason that may infect their agenda.
And you could read countless articles by leading scientists that are begging, imploring ID followers to read them, you could start with Dawkins' website and go from there. Hell, you could start with wikipedia if you wanted to.
The problem with people like you is that thanks to you, this "debate" will never end satisfactorily. It's exactly the reason that scientists refuse to entertain "ID theory," that also makes it useless, absolutely useless, in a scientific discussion. All it does is stick around re-inventing itself to try and harm "those darn doctrinal scientists," who are honestly trying, under great pressure from you and other willfully ignorant people, to do their jobs.
Ever notice that nothing ever changes OSC's mind about this issue? Ever think it's the slightest bit possible that his beliefs have so little to do with the truth that he is insulated from ever having to change his story? Ever think that's very convenient for him? It's a weird irony that his belief in dogmatic institutionalism is so blindingly... dogmatic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you made all those claims about what the scientific community does and does not do. The honest thing to do is to defend them with evidence, or retract them.
The evidence I have for it is my personal observations. (For example, my personal experience of hearing my college professor stating that evolution was fact and that serious scientists wouldn't dispute it.) That's the honest truth. I'm willing to reject my own personal observations if given some good reason to, but not just because some people on the internet claim their observations are better than mine, especially if they dissect my posts in order to vehemently reject anything that could even remotely support ID and give me the impression they are very anti-ID. But, if there's been a study done that convinces me that scientists are not dogmatic on this issue, then I'd be happy to accept my personal observations were a fluke.
quote:This is a problem only insofar as scientists are not actually experts on how to define science and/or their own disciplines.
When it's being implied/stated that they aren't, that's ... pretty demonstratively untrue.
How so? By that I mean, what demonstrates that to be untrue?
quote:The problem with people like you is that thanks to you, this "debate" will never end satisfactorily.
I hope I'm not going to be held accountable to what "people like me" do... I'd prefer only to be held accountable for what *I* do and believe.
This is especially true when I'm being lumped with people who aren't really all that like me at all - as is the case here.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that you really don't want to be held accountable for anything *you* believe. You just want the world to go on listening to you for no reason.
They're just like you, really. In every way that matters.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm willing to reject my own personal observations if given some good reason to
Easy. It's called the limited explanatory power of anecdote.
Here's what's really going on. Intelligent Design makes no testable claim, is not science, and gets creamed whenever ID advocates open their ideas to testing and falsification. As a result, they largely don't open their ideas to testing and falsification; they just sit back and preach about how the failure of ID as a movement is based not on the weakness of the underlying principle of ID, but is instead the result of nefarious dogmatism of a closed scientific system. People like Orson Scott Card have — tragically? comedically? embarrassingly? — made themselves look the fools by biting into this scheme with hubris and without apprehension, and end up becoming the closed-minded processors of gospel they accuse the scientific world of being.
ID supporters (and creationism advocates in general) are always always welcome and encouraged to submit their concepts to academic review and testing. They are given every opportunity and afforded every capacity to contribute their subject matter. By and large, they (Discovery Institute, et al) complain about being locked out of the scientific process while essentially backing down from the challenge of supporting their work:
quote:Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. ... One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
Emphasis mine.
quote:Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. None of the "intelligent design" publications have led to any productive work. Most have had their main ideas rebutted (e.g. Behe 1996, Dembski 1998, Dembski 2002, Gonzalez and Richards 2004).
Scientists are only being 'dogmatic' in the sense that they are rejecting an empty movement which has — as a hallmark — professed empty claims of explanatory power and testable mechanisms, and when studied and scrutinized turns out to rely on easily refuted concepts(irreducible complexity, weak anthropic principles, so forth) that do not actually hold up to scrutiny and were undeniably conceived to support a concluding bias on the part of its supporting organizations, which are themselves undeniably acting for the ulterior purpose of weakening science in order to replace it with religious dogma as part of a cultural control plot. I am not making this up. I am not overstating it.
This claim of dogmatism on the part of the people opposed to the 'controlling' 'Darwinist' interests is nothing more than an excuse that design theorists use to try to explain away their own failure to make their case. When someone proposes a new scientific theory, it is that person's responsibility to make a case for it. Scientific theories have, in the past, achieved wide acceptance despite strong cultural and scientific resistance. (Evolution itself is an example.) If there is substance to ID theory, its proponents must make it clear.
People who study evolution come from a variety of cultural backgrounds. Many of them are far from committed to materialism. Some students enter the field hoping to challenge existing dogmas, and objectively detecting design in life would certainly accomplish that. If there were anything to ID theory, there should be more than enough biologists to help the design theorists make their case.
To all appearances, design theorists have blinded themselves to seeing flaws in their theories. Their religious motivation is obvious. Just as important, they do not follow the usual scientific procedure of testing their ideas.
A scientific theory is tested by subjecting it to a very real chance of falsification. Scientists make specific predictions based on the theory, look to see if the predictions pan out, and consider the theory false if the results cannot fit what was expected. Intelligent design theorists, unlike evolutionary scientists, do not put their ideas to such risks. Apparently, they do not want their ideas at risk.
Design theory is older than Darwin's theory of evolution. Design theory has nothing but its own lack of worth to blame for its failure.
I'm fully willing to see this through to the end. What are your apprehensions? How much of a hurdle does the overall nature of the scientific process have to clear before it becomes more valuable to your internal review than anecdotal incident? In other words, how long is this argument, to you, going to be defined and controlled by the Volvo fallacy?Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
So, your teacher told you that evolution is true, and there's no real disagreement within the scientific community?
If a teacher told you that, say, the laws of thermodynamics were true, and there's no real disagreement within the scientific community, would you call that being dogmatic?
If the evidence for something overwhelmingly supports an opinion, what is someone SUPPOSED to say?
"The evidence supports it, but let me suggest that it very well might not be true, and might be completely false, even though every one of our millions of experiments over a hundred years, any one of which could have falsified the theory, not only didn't falsify the theory, but supported it, and shed new light into the details of said theory, but it could very likely not be true anyway, so feel free to believe what you want"?
If I see that a rock is white, does it make me dogmatic to, you know, point out that it's white?
Does it make me dogmatic to get annoyed when someone continually claims it's blue? (thanks above for the cool analogy, whoever gave it.)
Does getting annoyed when, say, someone claims that blacks are inferior to whites make me dogmatic?
What do you want? Really, Tres, what do you want?!
Also:
Do you use the seemingly very, very high standard of evidence, not believing anything any of these people are saying without some huge amount of evidence, you use for this thing you don't believe, for the things you do believe?
Like religion, or do you use it against Intelligent Design as well as science in general?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're just like you, really. In every way that matters.
Part of the problem is that when you make statements as far from the truth as this one, it casts a shadow of doubt over your other claims too.
quote:In other words, how long is this argument, to you, going to be defined and controlled by the Volvo fallacy?
Until I get a copy of consumer reports showing that scientists aren't dogmatic, or something similar that I consider to be equally knowledgable and fair. But I'm not going to reject my personal observations about the Volvo just because the folks at the Volvo dealership tell me it's fantastic. Similarly, I'm not going to reject my personal observations about the scientific community just because some clearly anti-ID folks insist ID deserves what it gets. (Especially when, as Orincoro did above, they start mixing in claims that I know to be bluntly false.)
quote:If a teacher told you that, say, the laws of thermodynamics were true, and there's no real disagreement within the scientific community, would you call that being dogmatic?
If they said it was indisputable fact, rather than the best-fitting well-tested theory, then yes - it would definitely be dogmatic.
quote:If the evidence for something overwhelmingly supports an opinion, what is someone SUPPOSED to say?
"The evidence supports it, but let me suggest that it very well might not be true, and might be completely false, even though every one of our millions of experiments over a hundred years, any one of which could have falsified the theory, not only didn't falsify the theory, but supported it, and shed new light into the details of said theory, but it could very likely not be true anyway, so feel free to believe what you want"?
That is pretty close. Except take off the part about "feel free to believe what you want". That's wrong. You should believe, and have faith in, whatever the you judge the evidence most points towards as the truth. And also take off the "very likely" when you say it could "very likely not be true", since we don't know how likely it is that it might not be true. I'd say it is not likely that evolution is false, but still possible.
But yes, what I'd ideally want from the scientific community is: - Acceptance that scientific laws and theories are not fact, but rather that they are actually just well-tested theories that fit the known facts - Acceptance that there may be disagreement over which theory is best, which evidence is valid, and which methods are allowable - while still respecting those who disagree - Acceptance that there may be non-scientific evidence that would give people reason to reject whatever seems to best fit the purely scientific data - A comination of faith and skepticism, where each scientist has faith in the model that he or she considers to best fit the hard facts and in the methodology that he considers to be correct, but is also willing and desiring to question that model or methodology, in the hopes of finding an even better model. - A belief that when the mainstream scientific community takes the above attitudes and acts accordingly, that the best theory will naturally rise to the top
I think most scientists and the community in general accept most of the above principles in theory - but I've observed that when push comes to shove some, at least, seem to forget them. And I think that when they stop acting in the above manner, and instead get political, it ultimately undermines science as a whole and leads average people to consider science to be like a religion, which it is NOT.
quote:Do you use the seemingly very, very high standard of evidence, not believing anything any of these people are saying without some huge amount of evidence, you use for this thing you don't believe, for the things you do believe?
I don't have a high standard of evidence for belief. I believe what I judge to be most likely to be true. For instance, I believe in evolution for that reason.
I do have a high standard of evidence for claiming my belief is certain fact. And I do apply that to other areas. It is not certain fact that Obama is the best candidate for president. It is not certain fact that I had cereal for breakfast this morning. It is not certain fact that I have any idea what I'm talking about here. But I believe each of these nonetheless, because something doesn't need to be certain in order to be believed.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you made all those claims about what the scientific community does and does not do. The honest thing to do is to defend them with evidence, or retract them.
The evidence I have for it is my personal observations.
Personal observations are terrible evidence. People misremember, or they remember what they want, and forget things which contradict waht they want to be true.
And you are using this as a basis to smear a whole community of people.
quote:(For example, my personal experience of hearing my college professor stating that evolution was fact and that serious scientists wouldn't dispute it.) That's the honest truth.
So it's the honest truth that when you hear an astronomer state that heliocentrism is a fact, and that no serious scientists disputes that, you think they are being wrongly dogmatic?
I think not. So much for your honesty.
I happened to be perusing old message threads, and I see a post in which you said that reasonable arguments just don't persuade you. So why don't you be honest, and just say that up front?
quote:I'm willing to reject my own personal observations if given some good reason to,
Oh really? You are sure that scientists are dogmatically ignoring evidence, but you don't know what it is. You are sure that scientists are dogmatically ignoring valid anti-evolution arguments, but you can't name a single one.
But you remember once a scientist saying that heliocentrism was a fact, and no one sensible disputed it, and that made you sure that scientists were dogmatic.
quote:but not just because some people on the internet claim their observations are better than mine, especially if they dissect my posts in order to vehemently reject anything that could even remotely support ID and give me the impression they are very anti-ID.
Why is it a bad thing to opposed to obvious lies and falsehood? How is it that you yourself can not name a single intellectual virtue of ID, not one valid argument, not one piece of data, and yet you expect people to fall all over themselves to say nice things about it?
It doesn't matter how vehement posters are. What matters is if their claims are factually accurate and logically coherant. Yours are not, and whining about how unfair it is that the people on the losing side of an argument get their claims torn apart is childish. If you don't want people refuting your claims, refrain from making factual claims you can not defend.
quote:But, if there's been a study done that convinces me that scientists are not dogmatic on this issue, then I'd be happy to accept my personal observations were a fluke.
How about an anecdote, since you set so much store by them. For years, the medical community thought that ulcers were caused by stress. And eveyone thought that the only way to get rid of them was to reduce the amount of stress in a person's life. And this seemed to work, to an extent. Then one scientist noticed that patiens with ulcers who went on antibiotics for other reasons had their ulcers cured too. Therefore, he figured that ulcers were primarily caued by bacteria.
Did this scientists found an institute to push his ideas on the public? Did he put stickers in medical texts? Did he make a movie calling mainstream scientists Nazis? Nope. He did science. And the scientific community changed its mind so fast in light of the evidence he presented, they gave him the Nobel Prize in practically record time.
Before molecular biology, some people thought that proteins were the heritdary material, not DNA. When it was proved that it was DNA, were the scientists who discovered this "expelled"? No. People did a few more tests to be sure, and then accepted what the evidence told them. Same thing when the "central dogma" of biology was shaken up with the discovery of retroviruses. No one was exiled, no one was called a nazi, scientists just said "Oh, look at that, it makes DNA from RNA". Same today with methylation. There is a plant mutant which has a flowering time defect. Classical genetics predicts that there should be a mutation responsible, an A changed to a G, or something like that. Well, classical genetics appears to be wrong, because the primary sequenes of the mutant are identical to the wild-type. But the mutant shows diffferent methylation, and that's why there is a phenotypic difference.
So, what do you thnk happened to the scientists who discovered this...do you think that they were shunned, lost all their funding, and that they resorted to making movies and stickers?
Or do you think that they were published in one of the three most prestigeous journals in the scientific community?
But whatever. I can only tell so many stories, and your personal memories and willful bias will trump a mountain of examples I can present. So I know you will not care.
Well, hopefully someone else will think that the methylation thing is cool, if nothing else.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it's the honest truth that when you hear an astronomer state that heliocentrism is a fact, and that no serious scientists disputes that, you think they are being wrongly dogmatic?
Yes, if by "fact" they mean we are certain it is true.
quote:You are sure that scientists are dogmatically ignoring evidence, but you don't know what it is. You are sure that scientists are dogmatically ignoring valid anti-evolution arguments, but you can't name a single one.
I didn't say any of this, and I pointed how rarely I like to use the word "sure".
quote:Why is it a bad thing to opposed to obvious lies and falsehood?
I didn't say that.
quote:How is it that you yourself can not name a single intellectual virtue of ID, not one valid argument, not one piece of data, and yet you expect people to fall all over themselves to say nice things about it?
I didn't say that either.
quote:So, what do you thnk happened to the scientists who discovered this...do you think that they were shunned, lost all their funding, and that they resorted to making movies and stickers?
quote:Yes, if by "fact" they mean we are certain it is true.
As I said, Tres, you don't understand scientific epistemology. This not what is meant by fact, as has been told to you more times than I can count.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for "fact", that's why I included the "if" to clarify under exactly what circumstances my answer to his question would be yes.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, There are 12 year old kids who don't make the extremely basic errors in talking about science that you do. You are very ignorant of what you are talking about and you try to use this ignorance as a tool.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, I'm trying to phrase this without being insulting or getting into a debate about qualifications... But when you are making judgement calls about what I do or do not understand, given you know very little about me, you have no leg to stand on - unless you consider disagreeing with you to automatically equal "very ignorant". I mean, we could just go back and forth calling eachother ignorant, but I don't think that would be a very productive thread.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, You've been pushing this whole thing for years on Hatrack. You make the same basic mistakes over and over. People have tried to educate you, but you come back to repeat the same ignorant things again and again. You make claims about science that just are not true in the most simple and basic ways.
I've never seen someone talking with you about science be productive, because you are extremely ignorant and you refuse to acknowledge this or learn.
---
edit: You could show me wrong though. Earlier, you were asked to name one expert in scientific epistemology that believes that ID fits within the scope of science. Could you provide one. and maybe their reasoning for this?
Now, obviously, not a good example. String theory is hardly going to be taught in America's high schools. But it is taught in universities.
Is this not an example of scientists pursuing something that cannot, at this time, be tested, observed, or experimented upon with the scientific method?
Please enlighten me. I'm not a physicist, so I could be wrong.
((I agree that Intelligent Design is not science and any one who defends Intelligent Design as science is a loony.))
Posts: 339 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, if by "fact" they mean we are certain it is true.
I think Gould provides the best response to this:
quote:Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. ...In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Now, obviously, not a good example. String theory is hardly going to be taught in America's high schools. But it is taught in universities.
Is this not an example of scientists pursuing something that cannot, at this time, be tested, observed, or experimented upon with the scientific method?
Many mainstream scientists view string theory as being equivalent to religion, so this is a poor example. Regardless, string theory is a mathematical model that accords with observed phenomena, so it's much less vague than ID.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
You're using a different definition of the word fact that all the rest of us.
I guess, something that people use every day, that works, that being incorrect would cause disasters and would keep the technology we use from working, can't be called a fact in your book.
Because that would be dogmatic. Because there's no such thing as fact, in your book. There isn't.
quote:They're just like you, really. In every way that matters.
Part of the problem is that when you make statements as far from the truth as this one, it casts a shadow of doubt over your other claims too.
Who allowed you to get through school with such weak analytical skills? I made an assertion, about your intellectual process being similar to that of ID followers, and it being dishonest. You respond: "I know you are, but what am I?"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Tres, You've been pushing this whole thing for years on Hatrack. You make the same basic mistakes over and over. People have tried to educate you, but you come back to repeat the same ignorant things again and again. You make claims about science that just are not true in the most simple and basic ways.
I've been wondering how that was possible. Tres falls back, finally, on the claim tat "we know very little about him." I would beg to differ considering that many people are very familiar with his mode of thinking, and this definitely shapes their interactions with him.
I would like to know how old tres is, his level of education, his job. That might sed some light on things, or maybe not.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You could show me wrong though. Earlier, you were asked to name one expert in scientific epistemology that believes that ID fits within the scope of science. Could you provide one. and maybe their reasoning for this?
Well the most blatant example would be Stephen Meyer, who was practically a founder of the ID movement, so there is no doubt he believes it fits within the scope of science. He is a philosopher of science (with a PhD) who dedicates his life to this topic, so it is pretty tough to deny he is an expert. As I understand it, his reasoning is that every attempt to define a line of demarcation for science (such as "science = only theories that are falsifiable") have failed time and time again under philosophical scrutiny, so we ought to conclude that there really is no line of demarcation. And therefore, as I understand his argument, all theories about the way the natural world functions would fall under the scope of science.
And to avoid someone trying to put Mr. Meyer's words into my mouth, let me be clear that I don't agree with his position on the demarcation issue.
quote:Who allowed you to get through school with such weak analytical skills? I made an assertion, about your intellectual process being similar to that of ID followers, and it being dishonest.
That would be the Economics and Philosophy Deparments at the University of Virginia, who graduated me with honors. I put the blame on them! If you can judge my analytical skills and intellectual process better than they did, without ever meeting me and based solely on a few threads on an online forum, maybe they should consider you for a teaching position there...
Seriously though, I'd rather not have a debate on qualifications or who has better analytical skills - that's a waste of time IMHO. If my thoughts are wrong just explain why and leave it at that; there's no need to personally attack me (and those who educated me!) too.
quote:You're using a different definition of the word fact that all the rest of us.
Fair enough. In that case, to follow your definition of fact, I will change my response to swbarnes' question from "Yes, if" to "No".
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I put the blame on you for coasting through your education without learning how to argue effectively.
And please, let's cut the "this is just some internet forum where you don't know me," garbage. You're the one with 7,000 posts.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Seriously though, I'd rather not have a debate on qualifications or who has better analytical skills - that's a waste of time IMHO. If my thoughts are wrong just explain why and leave it at that; there's no need to personally attack me (and those who educated me!) too.
And this has been explained to you again, and again, and again. At a certain point, it becomes a matter of interest that you continue to make the same errors, and that you continue to perpetuate the same arguments that never work for you. At a certain point, you draw the focus to yourself, through the sheer gravity of your mistakes.
I'm a little interested in the consistency of your thinking... the way ideas bounce off of you calls to mind the image of hitting a ball against a wall coated in glue. Everything comes back with diminished force, and a strange sheen of stickiness.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when you are making judgement calls about what I do or do not understand, given you know very little about me, you have no leg to stand on - unless you consider disagreeing with you to automatically equal "very ignorant". I mean, we could just go back and forth calling eachother ignorant, but I don't think that would be a very productive thread.
That 'we don't know very much about you' is a mostly irrelevant point at best in regards to the actual argument, because the contended points about your method of argumentation rely primarily on the arguments you make in these threads.
That we don't know 'who you are' is a spurious charge that you haven't yet weighted with relevance. I and others are debating with the arguments you are making with your posts. We don't need to go beyond the words you are typing to do that since the errors in critical thinking are observably contained within them and evidently to others in your posting history.
Just like the "I don't want to debate the science because I'm not qualified (but the science is wrong fyi)" thing, this is a useless angle to your defense that you would do well to drop and never return to.
quote:Until I get a copy of consumer reports showing that scientists aren't dogmatic, or something similar that I consider to be equally knowledgable and fair. But I'm not going to reject my personal observations about the Volvo just because the folks at the Volvo dealership tell me it's fantastic.
Who's part of the volvo dealership? Me? No. I would like to lame the goalposts here so that they don't move around so much. Where do you want to settle your burden of proof? This is what I've been asking you — what does it take for you to weight more representative information over personal interpretations and anecdote, since you seem to be clinging to them?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, Tres requires that information to appear in an issue of "Consumer Reports." He has made that quite clear. And until that day comes, forget it
quote:Well the most blatant example would be Stephen Meyer, who was practically a founder of the ID movement, so there is no doubt he believes it fits within the scope of science. He is a philosopher of science (with a PhD) who dedicates his life to this topic, so it is pretty tough to deny he is an expert. As I understand it, his reasoning is that every attempt to define a line of demarcation for science (such as "science = only theories that are falsifiable") have failed time and time again under philosophical scrutiny, so we ought to conclude that there really is no line of demarcation.
Sorry. I made an implicit assumption that really should have been explicit. When I asked for an expert who believed this, I meant someone disinterested in the situation. I don't accept this man as able to offer an objective expert opinion or the very poor reasoning you gave him (everything is science because there just aren't any limits) as being any less stupid because he's got a PhD.
Can you show me someone who isn't a member of the dishonest ID movement who believes that this falls into science?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would be the Economics and Philosophy Deparments at the University of Virginia, who graduated me with honors.
That's not exactly stellar knowing about scientific epistemology credentials. You could easily achieve that without understanding it.
That may be your problem Tres. You think you're qualified, but, based on the constant, basic errors, you show to anyone who actually does know this stuff that you are not. Your confidence is misplaced.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit, this is the first time I've seen anyone try to use himself in an appeal to authority. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Tres, could you perhaps articulate just what it is you want the scientists to do? Suppose you have a Hypnotic Mind-Control Ray and are thus able to convince all the evil conspirators of the superiority of your viewpoint; what are they going to do next?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is Tres's exact definition of ID? Also just noting, the head of the human genome project is a Christian.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just seems like being a Bible believer in the Academic world is sort of like being gay in the military, is all. Just keep it zipped up and do your job, and no one gets hurt.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It just seems like being a Bible believer in the Academic world is sort of like being gay in the military, is all. Just keep it zipped up and do your job, and no one gets hurt.
Where the heck do you get that from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It just seems like being a Bible believer in the Academic world is sort of like being gay in the military, is all. Just keep it zipped up and do your job, and no one gets hurt.
It seems to me that being a Bible believer in the scientific world is like being a ghost believer in the ornithology world. It's nice and all, but what does it have to do with birds?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But yes, what I'd ideally want from the scientific community is: - Acceptance that scientific laws and theories are not fact, but rather that they are actually just well-tested theories that fit the known facts - Acceptance that there may be disagreement over which theory is best, which evidence is valid, and which methods are allowable - while still respecting those who disagree - Acceptance that there may be non-scientific evidence that would give people reason to reject whatever seems to best fit the purely scientific data - A comination of faith and skepticism, where each scientist has faith in the model that he or she considers to best fit the hard facts and in the methodology that he considers to be correct, but is also willing and desiring to question that model or methodology, in the hopes of finding an even better model. - A belief that when the mainstream scientific community takes the above attitudes and acts accordingly, that the best theory will naturally rise to the top
Interesting list of requests. Can I take them one at a time:
1) Scientific Community to say that Scientific Laws and Theories are just theories, not facts:
You go on to talk about one Scientific Professor who stated that Evolution was a fact. However, all the literature and discussion I've ever held with different members of the scientific community have agreed that theories and facts are different things.
While you are free to use your one time anecdote to further your own decisions, I'll use mine to keep my beliefs.
Laws, however, are not just theories. To say that the Law of Gravity, is just a guess, a theory that we could do away with will not stop you from falling off a cliff if you were to jump.
2) Acceptance that one can disagree on which theory is best--NO. If we accepted that any theory is equal to any other theory we have forsworn science. You test theories. That is how you determine which is the best.
Acceptance that one can disagree on which evidence is valid--No. If we accept that all evidence is valid, then no evidence is valid. Evidence must be weighed and measured to determine its value.
And which methods are allowable--NO. Again, some methods are more reliable than others. We can't say that the scientist who has done 5 years of research, keeping clear and concise records has methods equal to a tarot reader would be wrong. They are not equal. Sorry. Science will never say that.
While respecting those who disagree--Limited. If we are talking about respecting people who use one reliable method to demonstrate one type of valid evidence to promote their theory instead of using a different, but still reliable method to demonstrate different by still valid evidence that supports a different yet still rational theory, then yes, that should hold as much as humanly possible.
If you mean that someone should be a respected peer who uses nonsensical methods to create fraudulent evidence to promote their own pet self-pleasing theory, then no--they get no respect.
3) Accepting that there may be non-scientific evidence? What makes evidence Scientific and Non-Scientific? Do you mean that there is evidence that can not be supported by fact? Imaginary evidence? Theoretical Evidence? Please define.
4)Faith and Skepticism--these exist in abundance. Scientists pride themselves on both their faith in what they are working on, and their skepticism of it originally until they had it proved to them. No problem
5) Belief that when the main scientific community follows the above, the best theory will rise to the top. How can it? When all theories must be treated as equal how can one rise to the top?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It just seems like being a Bible believer in the Academic world is sort of like being gay in the military, is all. Just keep it zipped up and do your job, and no one gets hurt.
So you would predict that Francis Collins, who headed the public effort to sequence the first human genome, would never have published a book about being a believing Christian, right?
Well, you would be completely wrong.
Admitting that you support the teaching of evolution, that on the other hand has been known to get people fired.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I work with several people who are practising Christians. Admittedly I will be denouncing them to the secret police when the Revolution comes, but that's just me, not something systematic in academia.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Acceptance that there may be non-scientific evidence that would give people reason to reject whatever seems to best fit the purely scientific data
Can you give an example of objective non-scientific evidence?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You go on to talk about one Scientific Professor who stated that Evolution was a fact. However, all the literature and discussion I've ever held with different members of the scientific community have agreed that theories and facts are different things.
It's always terribly difficult because evolution is really both a fact and a theory.
Evolution the fact...living things change over time. This is a simple fact.
Evolution the theory...how those living things change.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It just seems like being a Bible believer in the Academic world is sort of like being gay in the military, is all. Just keep it zipped up and do your job, and no one gets hurt.
Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, has already been mentioned. In addition, I saw Ken Miller, a practicing Catholic, give a talk to hundreds of scientists at the National Institutes of Health, wherein he described his views on faith and science. His talk was very warmly received.
How do Collins and Miller differ from Behe and Stein? Simple: they support any arguments they make with peer-reviewed, rigorously tested evidence, and as much of it as they have available. They do not cherry-pick, or create straw-men caricatures of their opponents, or make emotional appeals to the audience designed to play on their instinctive biases. They do not try to claim that their beliefs in the supernatural can be supported by scientific evidence. They do not play politics. Instead, they abide by the scientific method in what they say and how they reason, and are thus justly considered to be both good Christians and good (nay, great) scientists.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have worked long term under three different PIs (not counting rotations or internships). Two of them I knew were Christian. With the other, we never discussed religion so I'm not sure. He was a very distant PI so I don't even know how many kids he had- the postdoc who more directly supervised me was religious and now has his own lab and tenure. So, from my personal experience, being openly Christian doesn't seem to matter. Of course, I am encouraging my boss to change churches. If he went to St. Peter's instead of St. Paul, then I would have a member sponsor for getting my baby into St. Peter's excellent daycare program (long waiting list otherwise). Same religion, just a different meeting place Somehow, I can't get him to go for it.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's something very troubling to me that some people believe that being a Christian means that you have to be dishonest and/or irresponsible in other aspects of your life.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that Tres's requirements could be stated:
"I believe in ID, and I will accept the scientific findings when science allows me to win an argument that ID is science."
Sure there are scientists that claim to be Christians, but we all know that they aren't real Christians. Real Christians have been excommunicated from the scientific fields. Only Science pandering lackeys remain, some of whom blaspheme the name Christian by daring to claim it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That may be your problem Tres. You think you're qualified, but, based on the constant, basic errors, you show to anyone who actually does know this stuff that you are not. Your confidence is misplaced.
Okay, let me get this straight: 1. You and Orinoco and others call me stupid and insist upon making this an argument about me and my qualifications. 2. I try hard to avoid making this an argument about qualifications and to avoid saying something along the lines of "I understand this better than you", but you insist on making it an argument over who is more qualified. 3. Then when I finally respond with a one-sentence mention of some qualifications, after being repeatedly prodded over it, you then accuse ME of basing my confidence on my own qualifications rather than reasons???
You are taking unfair advantage of the fact that I am not willing to call you ignorant, but you are willing to call me ignorant. I'm ending this now. What are your qualifications? Please list them. If you have a masters degree or higher in epistemlogy or the philosophy of science, or you work as a philosopher of science, then I will admit you are more qualified than I am. If not, then I'm just going to ignore any further comments about who knows better than whom or who is more qualified than whom. I will continue responding to those who want to discuss the issue, rather than me.
quote:When I asked for an expert who believed this, I meant someone disinterested in the situation. I don't accept this man as able to offer an objective expert opinion or the very poor reasoning you gave him (everything is science because there just aren't any limits) as being any less stupid because he's got a PhD.
Unfortunately, that causes a circular problem. The philosophers who write about intelligent design and prominently defend it to such a degree that I would know about them are the same ones who you'd label as being a part of the ID movement.
I will say that I know for a fact the same reasoning about the lack of a demaraction between science and nonscience is neither stupid nor made up by Meyer. It is accepted by other philosophers of science - but I do not know whether or not those other philosophers have ever stated how it applies to the intelligent design issue.
quote:So Tres, could you perhaps articulate just what it is you want the scientists to do?
I just did exactly that. See my 11:40 post on May 14.
quote:It seems that Tres's requirements could be stated:
"I believe in ID, and I will accept the scientific findings when science allows me to win an argument that ID is science."
I have specifically said mutliples times in this thread alone, and in many other threads, that I DO NOT BELIEVE IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY and that I don't think there is evidence that it is in any way a better theory than evolution.
quote:Can you give an example of objective non-scientific evidence?
Any historical text that is used to deduce events that happened in history by historians, for example.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That may be your problem Tres. You think you're qualified, but, based on the constant, basic errors, you show to anyone who actually does know this stuff that you are not. Your confidence is misplaced.
Okay, let me get this straight: 1. You and Orinoco and others call me stupid and insist upon making this an argument about me and my qualifications.
No, they called you ignorant. Not the same.
Personally, I don't give a crap about your qualifications. Your arguments stand on their own merit, or they don't.
quote:2. I try hard to avoid making this an argument about qualifications and to avoid saying something along the lines of "I understand this better than you", but you insist on making it an argument over who is more qualified.
If you insist that you wre right, and we are wrong, but can't tell us why, then you kind of are saying that you understand this better than we do.
quote:You are taking unfair advantage of the fact that I am not willing to call you ignorant, but you are willing to call me ignorant.
It's that you are "unwilling"? Well, ignore your scruples for just a moment, and point out a case where someone has made a factual arguement about evolution or ID which you think demonstrates an ignorance about the facts.
Believe me, if there is something relavent fact that you know about ID or evolution that you think I don't, go ahead, call me ignorant, and tell me what it is, becuase I want to know.
quote:I just did exactly that. See my 11:40 post on May 14.
Okay, you wrote:
quote:Acceptance that there may be disagreement over which theory is best, which evidence is valid, and which methods are allowable - while still respecting those who disagree
Let's say that I had a theory that you keyed my car last night. And you think that the evidence that you were 1000 miles from my car is pretty good evidence that you didn't. I disagree. I think that the fact that I dreamt you did it is evidence enough.
How much respect do you then have for me and my argument?
But maybe I see the problem. Everyone you are arguing against thinks that theories with evidence supporting them are miles better than those that have none. But you seem to be arguing that all theories, no matter how obviously counter-factual or widly specualtive, should be treated as no better or different than theories which are grounded in fact.
I suspect that in real life, when it comes to your health, your house, your money that you feel the same way as the rest of us. But not on this question
quote:Acceptance that there may be non-scientific evidence that would give people reason to reject whatever seems to best fit the purely scientific data
Again, back to the "would you build your house on it" test. I suspect that if your daughter-in-law said that your son had cancer, and her pastor told her to pray instead of getting treatment, you would not say "Yes, you have a valid reason for rejecting the scientifically proven treatment, go ahead and do that". When it matters, you will pick what is proven to work over a "reason" based on wishes.
quote:A comination of faith and skepticism, where each scientist has faith in the model that he or she considers to best fit the hard facts and in the methodology that he considers to be correct, but is also willing and desiring to question that model or methodology, in the hopes of finding an even better model.
Using faith to describe what scientists think about their theories is wrong. Faith is believing in things which are not sufficiently supported by evidence and reason. Facts held to be scientifically valid are those which are supported sufficiently by evidence.
Scientists are always willing to consider new theories which better fit the facts, but the core of science is that you reality test. That's the methodolgy. And if you think that that's too dogmatic, the whole "Don't think anything's true unelss there's evidence supporting it, and unless you tried to prove it false, but it still looks true" that scientists should consider not testing things, but just believing whatever they want, for whatever personal reason they wish...well, that's not going to happen.
If you really think that this is a fundamental problem with science, you should just say so up front. Then, we'll know where you're coming from.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I apologize about my last post. Claiming you were arguing for a rewriting of scientific procedure until it agrees with your pet theory was wrong.
You stated earlier that you disagree with ID theory.
However, I hope you can understand that your distrust of the scientific community is similar to that of ID proponent. That is where I was confused.
I do have two questions for you.
1) You suggest that "Historical Texts" are non-scientific evidence that should be given credit. I thought history, archeology, and sociology were all sciences, and they rely heavily on "Historical Texts". They are evidence.
However, if you mean religious texts that proclaim how creation was accomplished before the advent of the written word, I see several problems with calling them evidence.
A) There are many different written religious texts that offer such evidence, and all of it contradicts each other. If we say that each should be treated as valid, then none are valid. We could easily end up fighting wars over which one to call valid and which one to call blasphemy.
B) Even if they were created by God, they have been translated, copied, and edited by men. Why should that evidence be considered equal to verifiable and measurable evidence, and not closer to the hearsay evidence that our courts won't even accept?
C) Even if the exact words of the ancient texts remain the same, their meanings have changed. They no longer say what they used to say.
My other question is about tactics.
2) You say that you do not believe A but then give evidence for A. Like you say you don't believe in ID, but then you list standard ID arguments as needing to be valid. You say that you disagree with one mans arguments for removing the separation of Science and Philosophy, but then you list it as a valid argument.
This makes me wonder are you trying to be passive/aggressive in these arguments or do you just like trolling for arguments, to the point of picking fights you don't believe in, just for the fun of getting people upset?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I don't give a crap about your qualifications. Your arguments stand on their own merit, or they don't.
I give you credit for that then.
quote:But maybe I see the problem. Everyone you are arguing against thinks that theories with evidence supporting them are miles better than those that have none. But you seem to be arguing that all theories, no matter how obviously counter-factual or widly specualtive, should be treated as no better or different than theories which are grounded in fact.
Let me try to clarify on that point then, because that's not really what I'm arguing. I think all theories should be treated rationally and with a certain degree of respect. But I definitely do also think only the best theories should be believed, and that theories with evidence against them should be rejected. The difficulty is when the majority thinks a theory should be rejected, but a minority thinks a theory should be accepted. In those cases, I think each party ought to unilaterally respect the other, while at the same time still accepting as true only the one theory they believe to be true.
By respect here I mean attacking only using evidence and reason, and refraining from personal attacks against believers in the theory, emotional appeals, exaggerations to make your case sound stronger than it actually is, and other fallacies. I'm perfectly fine with arguments the there is no evidence for ID, or that there are mountains of evidence against it. What I take issue with is calling ID supporters ignorant, or suggesting evolution is absolutely certain, etc.
But don't confuse this with the idea that all theories are equal. For example, I respect the theory that God is against the use of modern medicine - I'm not going to suggest people who believe such a theory are crazy or irrational. But I'm definitely going to reject that theory. I'm definitely going to use modern medicine. I think the rational evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of modern medicine.
So yes, scientists should reject ID insofar as they have evidence against it.
But let me ask your opinion - when dealing with a theory you reject, how far do you think it is okay to go in order to advocate others rejecting it? If mainstream scientists think a theory is dangerously wrong, what tactics should scientists use to convince the public it is wrong?
quote:However, I hope you can understand that your distrust of the scientific community is similar to that of ID proponent.
I recognize that similarity, but I also trust you to see that just because we share that one similarity doesn't mean I am an ID proponent.
quote:1) You suggest that "Historical Texts" are non-scientific evidence that should be given credit. I thought history, archeology, and sociology were all sciences, and they rely heavily on "Historical Texts". They are evidence.
However, if you mean religious texts that proclaim how creation was accomplished before the advent of the written word, I see several problems with calling them evidence.
I was thinking more along the lines of non-religious texts, such as the sort historians routinely use to figure out details about history they could not otherwise know. I think they are definitely a valid sort of evidence that is not scientific.
Religious texts would be more contraversial. They could be considered evidence, but they aren't as objective as some other texts might be - for all the reasons you mentioned.
quote:2) You say that you do not believe A but then give evidence for A. Like you say you don't believe in ID, but then you list standard ID arguments as needing to be valid. You say that you disagree with one mans arguments for removing the separation of Science and Philosophy, but then you list it as a valid argument.
That's because, like I said above, part of the point I want to make is about how we and how science should treat theories we disagree with. My point is that you can totally reject a theory, but still believe it is valid for someone else to argue in favor of that theory. I reject Intelligent Design, but think it is valid for someone else (who sees the evidence differently from myself) to argue in favor of it. That distinction, between rejecting a belief for myself and rejecting the right of others to choose for themselves whether to accept a belief, is one that I consider very important, across almost any topic I take part in.
quote: "Can you give an example of objective non-scientific evidence?"
Any historical text that is used to deduce events that happened in history by historians, for example.
Dare I ask what in the world this means?
If you mean that historians use historically relevant materials to form theories about history and society, then you should know that their researches are subjective, they cannot be objective.
Unlike science, the study of history is pursued from the inextricably subjective viewpoint of the historian. You can work around that, you can help yourself by looking at history through the lenses of different working theories, you can be more or less scientific, but you are not being objective. And objective view of history, aside from being impossible, would be useless as well. We look at history to try and find out what's relevant to humanity, what part of ourselves relates to the past, and what we can learn from that- if we were looking at all that without any kind of lens, what could we learn?
Of course we talk about being "objective," but we don't mean objective in the way that science is objective. There are sciences involving the past that look at things objectively, and they are not called "history," but instead "natural history."
Now, if you're talking about historians actually looking at a document and trying to get a sense of the sequence of a set of events, what actually happened, then you should immediately realize that it does not interest the historian to simply know precisely what has occurred. There would be no reason to know any of that if it were not considered relevant, in a subjective sense. It is the perceived importance of the event that first attracts the attention of an historian, so deducing, approximately, the order of events is part of a search for meaning, just as it is a search for facts. Because we as observers of the past attach specific meanings to specific acts, in the subjective context of human society, we also look for those symbols in our studies of the past, and this affords us with information that is not gleaned objectively.
I sense the counter-argument being: "yeah, but they still look objectively at facts." Not really. Historians are primary interested in human actions and motivations, and the progression of society and politics, art and culture over time. If you study human actions, you do so with an awareness of the symbolic meaning of those actions, or with an awareness that their symbolic meaning or cultural significance are different than what you are used to. You are finding out why that is. The differences define our historical perspective, and so to be unaware of our own symbols and cultural values is to have no sense of our own history.
So, history is not science, history is not objective. They share similar contours– historians still test their theories, they still gather evidence, but they never get objective results.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Let me try to clarify on that point then, because that's not really what I'm arguing. I think all theories should be treated rationally and with a certain degree of respect.
I think that scientific challanges should be dealt with scientifically, and political challanges, like Creationism, should be dealt with politically. There is no such thing as a Creationist who became one because he examined the facts, and logically concluded that Creationism was the best conclusion. People are Creationist because it's part of their religion. And virtually no one can be reasoned out of their religion. It's just not going to work.
However, we can stop political attempts to sabatoge the Constituion, and that's what pro-science advoctes do.
quote:But I definitely do also think only the best theories should be believed, and that theories with evidence against them should be rejected.
So if I have a "reason" to think that your son will best be healed of cancer by prayer, there's no evidence existing that says it won't, since no one's ever prayed to heal your son before, and no one's ever had a strong a feeling that it'll work this time as I've got right now.
So my theory is the best.
quote:The difficulty is when the majority thinks a theory should be rejected, but a minority thinks a theory should be accepted.
Well, the way out of the difficulty is more testing. Not saying that the witch doctors "reason" is perfectly valid, and should be respected as such.
quote:In those cases, I think each party ought to unilaterally respect the other, while at the same time still accepting as true only the one theory they believe to be true.
So does the doctor have an obligation to tell you that his treatment has evidence behind it which shows it to be more efficacious than prayer?
Or should he stay silent, because you have your "reason" to believe that prayer will work is not less valid than his own reason?
quote:By respect here I mean attacking only using evidence and reason, and refraining from personal attacks against believers in the theory, emotional appeals, exaggerations to make your case sound stronger than it actually is, and other fallacies.
Yet strangly, you have not one critical word to say about the people who say that scientists are naturally killers and Nazis. Its only the mainstream scientific community whose behavior you find to be worthy of critique. And why? Because having already destroyed the meagre "scientific" claim of Creationsim, they have the audacity to confront a political movement in political terms.
quote:I'm perfectly fine with arguments the there is no evidence for ID, or that there are mountains of evidence against it.
But if you really accepted this, you would stop arguing that this case needs to be made. It's been made for decades. It didn't stop Creationism, becuase Creationism is a political movement.
quote:What I take issue with is calling ID supporters ignorant,
Calling a spade a spade is not a flaw. Certainly on message board, if not among professional ID advocates, people defending ID simply don't a fraction of the relevent facts. Where as there are at least a few people here who do.
quote:or suggesting evolution is absolutely certain, etc.
No one has done that on the faith-based way that you imply. Everyone defending science here has said over and over again is that evolution is the eplanation that best fits the facts, and has been tested millions of times over a hundred years, and is supported by decades of evidence. That makes it as certain as anything in science. And that "in science" always has the caveat that scientsts stand ready to alter their theories to fit new evidence.
quote:But don't confuse this with the idea that all theories are equal.
No, you just think that all theories should be treated as equal.
quote:For example, I respect the theory that God is against the use of modern medicine - I'm not going to suggest people who believe such a theory are crazy or irrational.
Really? I think it's highly irrational to claim that one knows the mind of God.
quote:But I'm definitely going to reject that theory. I'm definitely going to use modern medicine. I think the rational evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of modern medicine.
Oh, so you think that you have rational evidence supproting that you understand the mind of God?
Do tell.
Or are you confusing two different things? I bet that people who refuse blood transfusions becuase of religious beliefs think that they work as advertised. They just think that it's not what they are supposed to do.
But if someone told you that they think that appendix removal does not heal people who have ruptured appendices, would you find that to be rational?
quote:But let me ask your opinion - when dealing with a theory you reject, how far do you think it is okay to go in order to advocate others rejecting it?
I think that political movements should be met politically.
quote:My point is that you can totally reject a theory, but still believe it is valid for someone else to argue in favor of that theory.
Ah. See, eveyone you are arguing with believes that Creationism has no valid scientific arguments to make. That maybe it had some 200 years ago, but they have long since been refuted. Certainly, you have been asked repeatedly if you know of any such, and you don't appear to. So when you argue for the right of Creationists to keep arguing, and to keep being trated respectfully, you are essentially arguing that the rest of us have to treat obviously false and illogical claims with the same respect that we give rational and well-evidenced ones.
quote:I reject Intelligent Design, but think it is valid for someone else (who sees the evidence differently from myself) to argue in favor of it.
If you are at a stop sign, and a car is approaching at very high speeds, is it really a matter of only academic important whether or not the guy thinks that stop signs are to be stopped at? Or is it okay that he has his "reasons" for thinking that stop signs are for other people, and not him?
If the guy next to you on the plane thinks it's valid to be traveling while suffering from highly infections, and highly drug resistant TB, are you really okay with that?
If your doctor "sees the evidence" differently from the rest of the medical community, and thinks that prayer is your best option, are you really okay with that too?
Back to the "would you build your house on it" test. If your house is going to fall down or burn or flood because someone else believes something irrational, I bet that you would have a problem with it. I bet that you would not say "Oh, they have their reasons, and all evidence is subjective, and science is only 99.999% sure that this guy will destroy my house, but that's not 100%".
quote:That distinction, between rejecting a belief for myself and rejecting the right of others to choose for themselves whether to accept a belief, is one that I consider very important, across almost any topic I take part in.
But this isn't about choosing to believe. You can believe whatever the heck you want. But if you say something that is facutally innacurate, or logically wrong, why shouldn't people be allowed to say so? Or should we all be silenced, because people believe things for their own "reasons", and it's wrong for us to not respect totally irrational and provably wrong reasons?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you mean that historians use historically relevant materials to form theories about history and society, then you should know that their researches are subjective, they cannot be objective.
That's a fair way of defining objectivity, but if we are going to talk about objectivity that way, then I think it is safe to say that evidence can be subjective and yet still be important. Historical evidence does carry weight, at least in my view - if a historian says "The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776" and has historical evidence for it, then I believe it. Therefore it is possible for subjective evidence to carry significant weight.
So then that raises the question: What if an expert scientists says "The evidence says this can't have happened" and then an expert historian says "The evidence says this DID happen"? Which do I believe? In my view, each discipline carries similar weight - I'm not going to automatically reject the science just because the historical evidence contradicts it, and I'm not going to automatically reject the historical claim just because the scientific theory contradicts it. What I'd do in that case is suggest weighing ALL the evidence, subjective or objective, historical or scientific, and then try to use my best judgement to determine which possibility seems most likely.
quote:So does the doctor have an obligation to tell you that his treatment has evidence behind it which shows it to be more efficacious than prayer?
Yes! In fact, I think in science, attacking a theory with rational evidence is a primary means of respecting it.
quote:Yet strangly, you have not one critical word to say about the people who say that scientists are naturally killers and Nazis. Its only the mainstream scientific community whose behavior you find to be worthy of critique. And why?
I usually don't argue things on this forum if (1) almost everyone already accepts the claim I am arguing for, or (2) a bunch of people have already made my point better than I can. As far as the question of "Is it mistaken to equate scientists with Nazis" I'm pretty sure both 1 and 2 are true. Almost everyone here already knows scientists are NOT in any rational way equivalent to Nazis. And if anyone doesn't understand what's wrong with making such a comparison, there's a ton of people on this forum who have already explained why better than I can.
quote:Calling a spade a spade is not a flaw.
Sometimes it is. In my view, when it comes to science, criticizing the flaws of a theory is always fair game, but calling proponents of a theory ignorant is not - even if they are. And actually I feel the same way about political disagreements too.
quote:So when you argue for the right of Creationists to keep arguing, and to keep being trated respectfully, you are essentially arguing that the rest of us have to treat obviously false and illogical claims with the same respect that we give rational and well-evidenced ones.
Yes - but again, there is a difference between treating a belief with respect and treating it as true. Respect it and those who believe it, but by all means don't build any houses on it, and try to convince those who want to build houses on it to not do so!
Let me add that I don't think we have much to fear from obviously false and illogical ideas. What I'm afraid of are nonobviously false ideas that appear deceptively true, even to an educated eye. In my view, an open and respectful approach to all alternative theories is the best defense against that kind of deception, because it prevents things from being canonized in a way that would make it difficult to question them if they later turn out to be false.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Somehow, I can't get him to go for it.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
