I grew up in a small, rural, Bible-Belt Community, and now that I think about it, I don't really remember getting *any* education one way or another on Evolution or Intelligent Design. I think the issue might have been avoided completely in my school district. I took Biology, dissected a frog, and honestly don't remember much else. My high school's science department was terrible, not because they did or didn't teach evolution, but because they were lucky to get faculty who could teach us *anything*. Through it all, I never really given the impression that Evolution was something bad, or evil, or bad scientifically speaking. Evolution as I understood it seemed to make sense, but in this community I always had weird beliefs as a Mormon anyway, so it might have just been on the list of things that marked me as different from everyone else.
But then I went to college -- BYU, which is about as conservative and religious-based as you could possibly get in an accredited university, where for once I was surrounded by people who had similar beleifs to mine. Until I took my Biology 100 class. That, surprisingly, was the first place I really ran into people who fought against the theory of Evolution. The professor very calmly taking each and every complaint and counter-theory and describing exactly why that theory was false, is one that still burns inside of my memory. He also made it abundantly clear that science does not and cannot disprove God. As a scientist who has found that the theory of Evolution is consistent with everything he has learned about the biological world around him, God is still very much a part of his life. Though he certainly gave new information, I found that my original opinion on this subject had not changed at all.
But I have friends and colleagues everywhere who are vehement that Evolution is false, bad science, anti-religious, etc... and it just confuses me. I try to explain my views, but Bio 100 was the last science class I ever took, so the language is just not something I ever became fluent in. I often do little more than reiterate my experiences from that class, and recommend Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller (which I heartily recommend to anyone who's still reading this), or if I can, Miller's lecture on Intelligent Design . That lecture (pretty sure I got it originally from Hatrack) is in my favorites list on Youtube, and whenever I find it I want to watch the whole 2-hour thing over again. I find it rather entertaining, especially towards the end when he refuses to take the bait of some rather snide anti-religious attendees (which is one of the biggest things Evolution has going against it -- I can't count the number of times information has been brought to me under the guise of science as a 'last nail in the coffin' for religious belief, which I find *very* annoying and taints an otherwise highly interesting piece of information).
Miller's main point is chilling: creating the sort of divide between science and religion that is the only logical conclusion of many who fight against Evolution creates a dangerous false dichotomy. Making one choose between science and God not only means that science will come to a standstill (remember history: In the middle ages some of the greatest research into science and medicine came from Muslims), but it attempts to put limits on what God can and cannot do, which in my opinion is kinda dumb.
So where does that put Card's essay? For one, he specifically argues that ID is not Creationism, which according to the ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education, is in fact untrue (ID literature is in fact simply a rewording of the old Creationism literature, and proponents of ID in religious circles admit freely that ID is in fact a religious belief).
There are enough dangers in the world for my future children to deal with as it is, I don't want them to fear scholarship just because someone says it should be feared.
(Edit: sorry for double posting the thread)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Ben Stein's Expelled is well made, funny at times, and also disturbing. It's far more honest and accurate than the works of either of the above-mentioned Oscar-winning documentarians. And the issues he discusses are vital.
I am absolutely flabbergasted by this.
Maybe I just won't read any of OSC's nonfiction anymore.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm happy to co-exist with any religions which do not teach hate and war, do not create impassable divides between people, and do not believe that ignorance is a virtue.
It's unfortunate that many of the loudest proponents of various religions can't manage that.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:OSC: The problem with ID theory is that they make an unwarranted intellectual leap. Just because the Darwinian model is inadequate or even contradicted by the evidence does not mean, imply or even hint that the best alternative explanation of the evidence is that it was designed by an intelligent creator.
Even when you coyly insist that you don't necessarily refer to God, Darwinism and ID are not the only two conceivable choices, and the assumption of Intelligent Design is counterproductive and antiscientific.
It seems the important thing is to keep an open mind and pay attention to what the evidence does and does not suggest... For example, there may be gaps in what evolution can explain--like the first big leap to a functioning DNA molecule of ATC and G.. I don't think we have any intermediate forms that have a half-made DNA. This observation doesn't necessitate either radical conclusion (that there must be an intelligent designer, or that the evolution must have just happened and we can't see it)
There are other possibilities, such as life arriving on Earth from an asteroid as bacteria... And even if we found evidence that something like this happened, it wouldn't answer the question of true origins anyway.
(Non-radical) evolution doesn't claim to speak to origins, and doesn't claim to be the only force or tendency operating to create the complexity of life we see on the planet today. Science doesn't end with evolution...
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I am absolutely flabbergasted by this.
Maybe I just won't read any of OSC's nonfiction anymore.
I haven't seen Stein's documentary, but there are/were factual problems with both Al Gore's and Michael Moore's work... I think it's important to just train a critical eye on everything (including OSC ) .
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have never understood why the ID theory can't go hand-in-hand with evolution. That's my personal belief-- that evolution was a means through which creation was achieved by God, who had an active hand in directing that process.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I haven't seen Stein's documentary, but there are/were factual problems with both Al Gore's and Michael Moore's work... I think it's important to just train a critical eye on everything (including OSC ) .
That's fine. I have no problem criticizing Gore or Moore. But defending Stein's slimy piece of propaganda is a little much.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
"Expelled" consists entirely of misrepresentations, anti-intellectualism, cherry-picking, straw man arguments, and outright fabrications piled one on top of another. That Card would claim that it is in any way "honest" or "accurate" only reveals his own ideological bias, gullibility, and what at this point can only be described as willful ignorance. On a personal note, I should note that the movie directly compares the people in my field to Nazis, and blames "scientists" for the Holocaust. It is Godwin writ large for the silver screen.
Furthermore, Card's defense of ID is, at best, grossly naive. When he makes statements like "Darwinism is grossly inadequate to explain very much of what we see" without backing them up, he only reveals his own ignorance of the theory he is deriding.
Rrgh. I'll try to post a more detailed rebuttal to his essay when I have more time- unfortunately, that pesky business of Doing Research Based on a Dogmatic Theory Which Isn't Real Science Despite The Fact That Every Biological Finding of the Past 150 Years is Directly Dependent Upon It is eating up all my time and energy. I'll just point out for now that his characterization of modern scientists as anti-religious is nothing more than paranoid delusion, and that it is folks like his buddy Ben Stein who are the ones attempting to blur the line between science and religion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Meh. He's an old man. He's set in his ways. At some point it becomes useless to argue with people, you just have to wait for them to die and take their dogmas with them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
OSC:
quote:But let me make it clear from the start that I believe Intelligent Design is wrong and potentially dangerous – and shouldn't be taught in science classes as if it were a scientific theory, because it is not.
Just a thought.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Maybe I just won't read any of OSC's nonfiction anymore.
That's the decision I reached quite a while ago. I love his fiction (for the most part); I cannot read his non-fiction without irritation. Even when I agree with him.
Exceptions are made for author's notes and Hatrack posts.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have never understood why the ID theory can't go hand-in-hand with evolution. That's my personal belief-- that evolution was a means through which creation was achieved by God, who had an active hand in directing that process.
Because "ID theory" claims that there is scientific proof of that belief. I share the belief with you, but it's pretty clear that there is no evidence for it that meets the standards for scientific rigor.
sarmup, I agree with both your recommendations. However, those who are married to the ID notion (or similar) will see straw men in both (and even I see a bunch in the book). Ken Miller is great, though. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. "ID theory" does not mean a belief that God was involved in the process. Many people have beliefs along those lines, including numerous evolutionary biologists. "Intelligent Design" is the assertion that it is scientifically provable there is some unknown entity involved in the origins of species (exactly how has never been well or consistently defined).
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
King of Men's comment is more disturbing to me than all of Card's essays put together.
Addressing the topic, however, I haven't seen No Intelligence Allowed, so I can't voice whether I agree with Card's assessment that its points are honest and accurate. But I must say that I agree with him very readily in the regard of the purpose of science and ID's place in it.
Science is about wondering what might cause something to work the way it does, guessing a possible solution, testing it vigorously and seeing if you're wrong. Good luck testing intelligent design.
If I will defend Card's "Darwinism is grossly inadequate" claim: the theory of evolution, while counterevidence hardly amounts to utter disproof, does not fully explain things like biogenesis, some of the great leaps in the tree of life (such as from unicellular-to-multicellular organisms, which I find hard to believe, given the disparity between the structural differences, and the fact that evolution has to be a gradual process (but I'm not really into getting into a hot debate about the unicellular-multicellular organism connection, because by all means I accept the idea that evolution is the most probable explanation for biodiversity)), and other more nitpicky questions. Science is never infallible, a point that Card so rightly makes. And OSC is right about ID in the classroom. It's not science. It's a hypothesis, but it's not testable, and therefore not "provable."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: King of Men's comment is more disturbing to me than all of Card's essays put together.
Yeah, but we don't have that "ignore poster" function yet, so what can you do?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: OSC:
quote:But let me make it clear from the start that I believe Intelligent Design is wrong and potentially dangerous – and shouldn't be taught in science classes as if it were a scientific theory, because it is not.
Just a thought.
Conveniently the rest of his article, wherein he promotes a film whose stated purpose is to support ID and attack those who disagree with it. He then goes on to claim that evolutionary theory (sorry, "Darwinism" ) isn't scientific either. Which is, frankly, laughable, and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the subject.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The article is clearly written by some one who isn't a scientist. Also, I am not convinced he understands what ID actually is. But most people don't.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:If I will defend Card's "Darwinism is grossly inadequate" claim: the theory of evolution, while counterevidence hardly amounts to utter disproof, does not fully explain things like biogenesis,
And the theory of gravity does not fully explain things like nuclear theory.
I'm not sure why that matters, though.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Meh. He's an old man. He's set in his ways. At some point it becomes useless to argue with people, you just have to wait for them to die and take their dogmas with them.
You're in your twenties, right? *looks at his watch* Guess I'll be waiting a while, then...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
There's a bit of difference between arguing that the earth is literally only a few thousand years old, and arguing that the development of life has been or is somehow guided by a supernatural force or power.
The first means you don't understand geology. The second is much harder to disprove.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: There's a bit of difference between arguing that the earth is literally only a few thousand years old, and arguing that the development of life has been or is somehow guided by a supernatural force or power.
The first means you don't understand geology. The second is much harder to disprove.
I'm perfectly happy believing in a diety that is willing to give the universe a couple loving taps every few million years and letting it go from there than one that has to show off by forcing the universe to do what he wants when he wants. It means I get to decide what I want to do with my life and make it (or break it) as I see fit.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: There's a bit of difference between arguing that the earth is literally only a few thousand years old, and arguing that the development of life has been or is somehow guided by a supernatural force or power.
The first means you don't understand geology. The second is much harder to disprove.
Of course, biologists aren't trying to disprove the latter. We simply don't accept it as a catch-all explanation, particularly when there is no evidence in its favor and there are plenty of genuinely testable alternative hypotheses out there to examine.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I thought that, beneath the pretty crass insult, KoM had a cogent point. Some of our host's columns have a specific get-off-my-lawn vibe to them.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
ID is not just saying "God did it." ID says the ONLY way to explain how mankind came to be is "God did it." Furthermore, they say that since they have proved God did it, this should be taught as science.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I thought that, beneath the pretty crass insult, KoM had a cogent point. Some of our host's columns have a specific get-off-my-lawn vibe to them."
It amazes me how shocked he has been by people's responses to him on these kinds of things. He's not stupid or uneducated, or poorly read, for heaven's sake. Where has he been living? Granted, the guy hasn't worked outside the home since the early 80s, but...I don't know. I am really starting to think that you need regular exposure to the "average person" to avoid becoming some kind of caricature. He hasn't been getting enough regular exposure, IMHO, to really know what people are thinking. At least, that's what I've got.
Posted by IcedFalcon (Member # 11593) on :
Im always seeing religous people going on about "God works in mysterious ways" They rattle about order in the universe. Yet there are times (like light) when they expect him to snap his fingers and its done. And Im closed minded for beleaving in the process AND God.
Posted by GodSpoken (Member # 9358) on :
I had to ROFL after forwarding OSC’s 2006 article on Intelligent Design and evolution to my husband, a staunchly dogmatic atheist who believes that the end of the world is upon us due to religious zealots pushing the doctrines of crazy into schools and politics; a religi-geddan, if you will.
I have no argument with evolution (I see no incompatibility with my faith) and agree with him on the damage many zealots do, but I am not an atheist and 99% of all non-atheists I know are not out there trying to stamp out education and return to church rule in school and government – both of those nightmares IMO. I agree that the behavior of trying to force my religion into your home, school, marriage, mind etc. should not be protected or tolerated. However, I don’t think the rabid remnant is going to topple civilization any time soon.
What had me amused was that OSC’s style of provocative essay writing is very similar to my husband’s argument style.
Step one: I am going to piss you off with my introductory points. Step two: I will then demonstrate how stupid people think. Step three: I will explain more rationally my points so the beauty of the plan is revealed. Step four: I will explain how your reaction in Step one makes you one of the stupid people. Step five: I will conclude with a calm logical summary that feels uncomfortable to be at odds with.
This is a thing of dark beauty to be sure.
Got him hook line and sinker with his own methodology. I was then able to explain to him why he consistently angers people in his discussions to the point that they miss his point when he is ready to make it. The entertainment value is just too much for him to change his tactics, however, so life marches on.
But, I giggled.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I didn't realize you were married to King of Men.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Sounds like me 5 years ago. Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: <snip>
sarmup, I agree with both your recommendations. However, those who are married to the ID notion (or similar) will see straw men in both (and even I see a bunch in the book). Ken Miller is great, though.
I see them in the book too, esp. since he defends the religious-angle of it from a very Catholic background. And he can write a bit...crotchety. But I really liked the main point of the book that was simply "Evolution and belief in God are not incompatible".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I haven't seen Stein's documentary, but there are/were factual problems with both Al Gore's and Michael Moore's work... I think it's important to just train a critical eye on everything (including OSC ) .
That's fine. I have no problem criticizing Gore or Moore. But defending Stein's slimy piece of propaganda is a little much.
Have you seen it? I'm just curious.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I see them in the book too, esp. since he defends the religious-angle of it from a very Catholic background. And he can write a bit...crotchety. But I really liked the main point of the book that was simply "Evolution and belief in God are not incompatible".
Agree entirely. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That's fine. I have no problem criticizing Gore or Moore. But defending Stein's slimy piece of propaganda is a little much.
Have you seen it? I'm just curious.
Seriously. Because while I'm no fan of Al Gore, I haven't seen An Uncomfortable Truth, and I'd be a little wary of using that sort of invective for a film that supports his views. I'm honestly curious to know whether you've seen the film, or whether you're calling it a "slimy piece of propaganda" solely on the basis of it not agreeing with what you think.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I don't see why viewing the film is necessary to criticize it. There are numerous clips of the more damning (and stupid) segments of the film online as well as numerous articles revealing how the filmmakers intentionally misled scientists to get them to agree for interviews and how interview responses were manipulated and taken out of context.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That's fine. I have no problem criticizing Gore or Moore. But defending Stein's slimy piece of propaganda is a little much.
Have you seen it? I'm just curious.
Seriously. Because while I'm no fan of Al Gore, I haven't seen An Uncomfortable Truth, and I'd be a little wary of using that sort of invective for a film that supports his views. I'm honestly curious to know whether you've seen the film, or whether you're calling it a "slimy piece of propaganda" solely on the basis of it not agreeing with what you think.
Sorry, I've been teching a show all weekend or else I'd have responded sooner.
No, I have not seen the film. I have seen clips on youtube, seen clips of Ben Stein talking about the movie, and read both pro and con reviews.
I don't call it a 'slimy piece of propaganda' based on it expressing different views than mine. I call it that based on Stein making the ridiculous and absurd comments that scientists, science and evolution are responsible for the Holocaust.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's incomprehensible to me that Card would write in support of Stein's "documentary."
I'm a little too disgusted to comment further.
I will never buy another book of Cards again. This is the last straw.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Furthermore, Card's defense of ID is, at best, grossly naive. When he makes statements like "Darwinism is grossly inadequate to explain very much of what we see" without backing them up, he only reveals his own ignorance of the theory he is deriding.
Card's particular specialty is making grossly inflated claims while deliberately withholding the thinnest piece of evidence (which he probably doesn't have), and then gleefully waiting for someone to come along and try to silence him just like he says they will.
I don't know if I find it pathetic, or insulting, or what anymore. It's not a sign of a great willingness to be humble or participate in an active conversation with anyone- I guess that's my issue with his output of the last few years... it's shrill and uncompromising.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: it's shrill and uncompromising.
The irony! It burns, it burns!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GodSpoken:
Step one: I am going to piss you off with my introductory points. Step two: I will then demonstrate how stupid people think. Step three: I will explain more rationally my points so the beauty of the plan is revealed. Step four: I will explain how your reaction in Step one makes you one of the stupid people. Step five: I will conclude with a calm logical summary that feels uncomfortable to be at odds with.
This is a thing of dark beauty to be sure.
That's fairly astute. I'd say what bothers me about Card is the bipolar oscillation between
"THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INCONTROVERTIBLY TRUE. YOU MAY NOT ARGUE THE SIGNIFICANCE"
and
"HOW DARE YOU CLAIM THAT YOU KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER!"
It's actually right there in the same article, he claims that knowing something for certain is impossible, then claims that 99% of scientists in history believed in God, and that is an undeniable fact. I don't know, I find it deniable. I at least find the significance of the observation, and the degree to which it is used in Card's favor to be arguable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: it's shrill and uncompromising.
The irony! It burns, it burns!
Yeah. Ow.
Only I'm not shrill so much as uncompromising.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: There's a bit of difference between arguing that the earth is literally only a few thousand years old, and arguing that the development of life has been or is somehow guided by a supernatural force or power.
The first means you don't understand geology. The second is much harder to disprove.
The second is patently lacking in a method to be disproven. This is why it is not science. There are many things about our experience on Earth and the way we come up with ideas and deal with our perceptions that present us with untestable hypotheses. We do not, for lack of a test, declare those hypotheses to be true, and if we believe they are true, we do not treat that belief the same way we treat testable and disprovable theories.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I didn't realize you were married to King of Men.
Or to be fair, any Hatracker.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: it's shrill and uncompromising.
The irony! It burns, it burns!
There is no balm in Gilead that can cure this ailment Rivka.
I completely missed this thread, but I'll visit it later.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I finished reading Card's essay.
Card's redefinition of ID fits with my own.
The biggest problem with the article is that he never explains what he means by 'Darwinism.' I assume that since he has redefined ID, he also has a definition for Darwinism; I didn't see it.
Stein's movie is hardly touched on at all, except to elaborate how honest and effective it is.
Is it taboo to say that the Nazi's did use biology and evolutionary science (as well as religion) to justify their horrendous acts of genocide?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I finished reading Card's essay.
Card's redefinition of ID fits with my own.
The biggest problem with the article is that he never explains what he means by 'Darwinism.' I assume that since he has redefined ID, he also has a definition for Darwinism; I didn't see it.
Stein's movie is hardly touched on at all, except to elaborate how honest and effective it is.
Is it taboo to say that the Nazi's did use biology and evolutionary science (as well as religion) to justify their horrendous acts of genocide?
I don't really think that's accurate. That depressing hatred of Jews existed long before Darwinism, or even social Darwinism, which is just an updated version of the Great Chain of Being. Besides, Hitler had some serious problems. I doubt he had evolution on his mind a whole lot. Though he did have that foolish master race concept, but one can have that, again, without the concept of evolution. In fact, it existed before Darwin.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it is taboo to say that the practice of evolutionary science is complicit in the Nazi's horrendous acts of genocide. (edit: and I only mean taboo in the way you seem to be implying; something that it is intellectually dishonest to say).
And there are numerous cases of specific dishonesties that have been pointed out in the movie, from selective quotation to outright lies about the practice and history of evolutionary theory.
That it sounds honest is not surprising. Stein is a master wordsmith. That does not make it honest, and for OSC to dub it such requires either a lack of research or a similar amount of dishonesty.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Is it taboo to say that the Nazi's did use biology and evolutionary science (as well as religion) to justify their horrendous acts of genocide?
No, just inaccurate.
It's the equivalent of the Nazis using astrology (which they did), and then blaming astronomy for it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it is taboo to say that the practice of evolutionary science is complicit in the Nazi's horrendous acts of genocide.
Is that what Expelled maintains? That the Nazis killed millions BECAUSE of their belief in "Darwinism?"
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He shows pictures of Nazi death camps with voiceovers about how "Darwinism" is "dangerous".
In interviews he's saying things like
quote:When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. [PZ] Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Were the accolades of PZ Myers as over the top as Stein's observation?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No idea, but I'd be happy to condemn anything he says that I think is intellectually dishonest, too.
For instance, if he has ever said that evolutionary theory is incompatible with a belief in God, I'll gladly condemn it for intellectual dishonesty.
edit: and I'm not certain that's very relevant. Even if I were to accept some theory of retaliatory intellectual dishonesty, Stein is painting the advice of all scientists as like Nazis on nationally televised television show, while PZ Myers has mostly been saying things on his blog, and in quotations edited by Stein in Expelled.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It should also be noted that the people making Expelled reportedly lied to the scientists that they interviewed as to the purpose of the interviews.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It should also be noted that the people making Expelled reportedly lied to the scientists that they interviewed as to the purpose of the interviews.
Whoah, reported where?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Whoah, reported where?
Primary source? The personal blogs of those scientists. The movie was described to them as a film called "Crossroads" which was supposed to be an objective look at the intersection of science and religion.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
Never mind. Found a couple of articles.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It should also be noted that, in the past, OSC has claimed that people were falsely accusing the ID movement of having the goal of sneaking creationism into schools, this being some time after the high profile Dover case established this was in fact exactly what they were doing.
Of couse, he's also claimed that the majority of people in the U.S. believe that premarital sex is wrong, using as evidence a poll that says the exact opposite and, when praising an article that, as part of it, showed a list of the research proven benefits of self-esteem, said that he had never seen articles that showed benefits of self-esteem. Or there's the string theory thing, or the gay research thing, and so on.
He doesn't have a very good track record of not saying things that are demonstrably false in areas like this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No idea, but I'd be happy to condemn anything he says that I think is intellectually dishonest, too.
For instance, if he has ever said that evolutionary theory is incompatible with a belief in God, I'll gladly condemn it for intellectual dishonesty.
edit: and I'm not certain that's very relevant. Even if I were to accept some theory of retaliatory intellectual dishonesty, Stein is painting the advice of all scientists as like Nazis on nationally televised television show, while PZ Myers has mostly been saying things on his blog, and in quotations edited by Stein in Expelled.
It may not be an example of retaliatory intellectual dishonesty, but retaliatory hyperbole.
EDIT: Not that I'd know. But without context, the information that has been provided on Nazi segment of 'Expelled' isn't that useful to draw a conclusion from.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Not that I'd know. But without context, the information that has been provided on Nazi segment of 'Expelled' isn't that useful to draw a conclusion from.
There are some pretty thorough reviews of the film, as well as its companion "Leader's Guide". I'd say there is more than enough information available to draw a conclusion.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Here is a thought. Let's say I believe in Intelligent Design, but here is my Intelligent Design theory. Space Aliens came wandering into our galaxy and stumbled across our solar system, took one look at earth and said, this place has potential. So, the sowed the seeds of intelligent life on this planet and so began the 'evolution' of man.
Periodically, the aliens returned to check up on their experiment. I'm guessing they haven't reach a success or failure conclusion yet.
That is a perfectly acceptable Intelligent Design theory. It accounts for everything that Intelligent Design accounts for. Life on earth is too complex to have spontaneously occurred, there had to be an intelligent designer. It is no easier or harder to prove than the 'god' theory.
Now the question, will religious conservatives accept that theory. Will the let me teach that version of I.D. to their kids?
And there is where I.D. fails the test. It can only be Intelligent Design, if they get to pick the designer. If God is the designer then Whoo-Hoo, but if we pick any other likely designer then most certainly we are wrong.
Since the only allowed intelligent designer is God, this is a religious matter, not a scientific one, no matter how much pseudo-science you throw at it.
No matter how much they try not to say 'God' when explaining Intelligent Design, the fact remains that for most, God is the only intelligent designer allowed.
But how is hyper-intelligent alien life any more far fetched than God? I would say, that Alien life makes more sense than God does. Alien life, if it exists, is at least real and tangible, not some unprovable immeasurable intangible abstract pure-faith God.
Perhaps all the great miracle workers in the Bible were just space aliens come down to check on their experiment. Perhaps, Jesus, if he was the miracle worker they claim, was himself a space alien scientist trying to get the barbaric world under control. Trying to push the next step in social evolution? It makes just as much sense as anything else.
Personally, I think those professing Intelligent Design and literal creationism are doing God an immense injustice. In reality they are creating God in their own image, not the other way around. I mean, how weak is you God if the best he can do is wave a magic wand to get things done?
God is infinite and all powerful. Evolution to him is hardly enough work to fill his day between breakfast and first coffee break. I mean, how dumb is your God if Intelligent Design is the best he can do. Now, Evolution, that is the work of a real and powerful God. That is a master piece of self-sustaining self-adapting life.
As far as I'm concerned, science simply documents the methods and means of God to the best of our ability to understand it in the moment. As we learn more, we understand more.
Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil. Church simply does not like what it can't control, and the church has NEVER been able to control science, and has NEVER been right about the validity of any scientific discovery.
Yet, eventually the science become so compelling that the church has to accept it, but then, when that time comes, of course, they knew it was right all along.
Your Intelligent Design only works if I get to pick the designer.
Hey...I'm just saying...
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil.
Wrong. Until a couple of centuries ago, every scientific breakthrough and general world discovery has been conducted BY the church. The rest of your post is well-reasoned, but that statement needs addressing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Wrong. Until a couple of centuries ago, every scientific breakthrough and general world discovery has been conducted BY the church. The rest of your post is well-reasoned, but that statement needs addressing.
Where did you get that information? It is not actually true.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil.
Wrong. Until a couple of centuries ago, every scientific breakthrough and general world discovery has been conducted BY the church. The rest of your post is well-reasoned, but that statement needs addressing.
With the exception of breakthroughs such as the discovery that the earth is round, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that planetary orbits are elliptical*?
* Not that Kepler was persecuted by the church but he certainly didn't work for it
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
It depends on what you mean by the "discovery" that the earth is round. The conclusion based on shadows came up long before Magellan. And the earth revolving around the sun part (I assume you're talking about Galileo and not Copernicus) was persecuted for political matters; Galileo named his textbook character that argued for the earth-centered universe Simplicio, which one of Galileo's political opponents pointed out to the Pope to be a possible insult.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil.
I don't think this is accurate, nor is C3PO's assertion that every discovery was by the church.
I'd say Gregor Mendel's work with beans was a huge scientific breakthrough and his work was sanctioned by the church.
edit: Sorry peas not beans, I don't know what I was thinking.
[ May 12, 2008, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, so the church persecuting people for 'political matters' is ok, then?
Apart from that, would oyu like to point to some of these scientific breakthroughs that you credit to the church?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
C3PO, I don't know where you are getting your information, but it's wrong.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: It depends on what you mean by the "discovery" that the earth is round. The conclusion based on shadows came up long before Magellan. And the earth revolving around the sun part (I assume you're talking about Galileo and not Copernicus) was persecuted for political matters; Galileo named his textbook character that argued for the earth-centered universe Simplicio, which one of Galileo's political opponents pointed out to the Pope to be a possible insult.
But this doesn't help you. You claimed that every scientific breakthrough was done BY the church. Even if you demonsrated that the church had no religious reason to deny heliocentrism, that doesn't demonstrate that the church lifted a finger to discover it. You demonstrate that the church paid Galileo to observe the planets through telescopes and to publish his findings, maybe you'd have a case.
But since you brought him up, how do you claim that Copernicus's research was conducted by the church?
Sure, Mendal was a monk, that doesn't mean that his work was done by the church. He did it on his own time, not because the church wanted it done.
Surely there's someone who can post a short list of scientific breakthroughs found by the Chinese (paper, variolation, gunpowder, for starters) and Arabs, how do you claim that those were found through work conducted by the church?
Heck, you are argung that there was not a single general world discovery at all until 2000 years ago? I'd say that bronzemaking should count for something.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Sure, Mendal was a monk, that doesn't mean that his work was done by the church. He did it on his own time, not because the church wanted it done.
He conducted his research in the monastery gardens, at the behest of friends both at the monastery and at the University of Vienna. I find it hard to believe that he could have used the monastery grounds if the church did not approve of that sort of activity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, he also labored in near-obscurity, on questions few even knew how to formulate, and his research wasn't rediscovered until much later, but I agree the church would have been okay with his research if they had really known anything about it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I find it hard to believe that he could have used the monastery grounds if the church did not approve of that sort of activity.
I know a bunch of kids in my HS church youth group who used church grounds to make out and/or smoke. I don't think the church would have approved, and it certainly didn't support or initiate that activity, simply because it took place on church grounds.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Sure, Mendal was a monk, that doesn't mean that his work was done by the church. He did it on his own time, not because the church wanted it done.
He conducted his research in the monastery gardens, at the behest of friends both at the monastery and at the University of Vienna. I find it hard to believe that he could have used the monastery grounds if the church did not approve of that sort of activity.
Come on now. You are grapsing at straws, and you know it.
No, letting a monk count his pea plants doesn't mean the church conducted genetic research. At most, it demonstraes that the church didn't disapprove strongly enough of a monk's harmless hobby to make him stop.
If you had evidence of a the abbot getting a letter from the bishop saying "Let Mendel do his pea research, have him print up his findings to share", then you'd have an argument.
Making some claim with "every" in it is naturally going to bring out the exceptions. And in your case, they are legion, and I figure will greatly outnumber whatever research you can name that was "conducted" by the church. Really the smart, honest thing to do is to retract your claim, because it's flat out wrong.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Can we also claim that the Catholic church believes in lying since it is pretty well established that Mendel fudged his data?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
swbarnes2: I don't think I am grasping at straws. And I think you are confusing my defense of church sanctioned research with another poster's belief that all scientific research came through the church.
I am simply avoiding both extremes because I feel neither is true. Mendal became a monk before he attended university. It was quite common for monks to be encouraged to study all the classic studies of the day so that they could better teach theology. Jesuits were especially famous for their establishment of universities and colleges that emphasized both theology and science.
I don't know the motives behind Mendal's experiment, but it's doubtlessly true that monks were encouraged to be smart and to conduct research. It's false that Christianity even in the middle ages stifled all scientific progress.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Can we also claim that the Catholic church believes in lying since it is pretty well established that Mendel fudged his data?
He did? As in made mistakes or intentionally fudged his data?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The issue is that Mendel's data is too perfect. Exactly why it is that perfect is uncertain.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
. . . but inaccuracy in measurement and/or recording is likely, although not certain.
Maybe evolution could not occur in such proximity to a monk! Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Keep in mind that for over 2,000 years every scientific break through and general world discovery has been denounced by the church as both not existing and being the work of the devil.
Wrong. Until a couple of centuries ago, every scientific breakthrough and general world discovery has been conducted BY the church. The rest of your post is well-reasoned, but that statement needs addressing.
I wasn't aware that newton was a member of the cloth.
I was also under the impression that there existed a very great deal of scientific work BEFORE the establishment of the church. I was under the further impression, from my studies of scientific history, philosophy and the church, that the greater part of the scientific tradition that ever existed inside the church was adopted from outside the church, as was the overwhelming majority of Christian philosophy.
Let's see: Algebra, Astronomy, Anatomy, Architecture, Geometry, Music theory, Metalworking, geology... all areas of interest that could not easily be said to have been advanced very much by the church- especially considering the advances made secularly in recent years, and during the height of the church's power. (Despite popular wisdom, secular music is a larger part of music history in any time period, fyi.) Wasn't there a period of European history, before "a couple of centuries ago," when people forgot how to make concrete?
And why, please do tell us, do we find so many of the great philosophical texts of ancient Greece from Arabic translations? They were not written in Arabic, but the Arabs preserved them, not Europeans, and not the church.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't know the motives behind Mendal's experiment, but it's doubtlessly true that monks were encouraged to be smart and to conduct research. It's false that Christianity even in the middle ages stifled all scientific progress.
Well, such a task would be impossible anyway, but you can agree, I'm sure, that the church did not encourage scientific progress in the way that it has been encouraged in the last two centuries.
That being said, there are uncounted reasons why scientific progress has been so keenly motivated in that time- and this has certainly hastened the fall of the church's wealth and political capital. IMO, the church is very simply outdated, and has been grasping for ways to cling to society's coattails since the enlightenment. Scientific research was certainly less threatening to the church at one time, but as the swift societal changes have racked up over the years, conspicuously related to the dispersal of knowledge and intellectual capital outside the church, the church has changed- it has tried to hold on to that fading capital in any way it can.
In some instances, perhaps starting most visibly with the obvious case of Galileo, it has struck out aggressively against progress not motivated toward the consolidation of information and intellectual capital within the church. In the timeless words of Jeff "freaking" Goldbloom: "it's the most awesome power the world has ever seen, and yet you wield it like a kid who's just found his dad's gun." I just like the quote. Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
[medievalist rant]
You know, it's this great myth that scientific discovery was completely stifled during the middle ages, that the before the renaissance people were unwashed and uneducated, waiting to fall down dead of the plague any second.
Silly.
The so-called "Dark Ages" was a time of great discovery and growth in Europe. Better understanding of farming techniques (revolving crops) allowed the population to grow so that people could do things like start the renaissance. While we know now that humeric medicine (the five humours etc) is bunk, it was thought to be true in the Middle Ages because it *worked*, and there was contemporary research to back it up. Hygiene was different, because without understanding of germs or bacteria, there was little understanding of sterility, but cleanliness was still valued. Formal education with reading, philosophy, etc. was rare even for the rich, though the best way to gain an education was through the church.
The Dark Ages laid the stage for more discovery in the Renaissance and later.
[/medievalist rant]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The so-called "Dark Ages" was a time of great discovery and growth in Europe.
What were some of these discoveries and growth? Are we talking primarily agricultural?
I don't know the period that well, but I was under the impression that most of the growth came from exposure to Muslims, who were the ones doing most of the discovery and who preserved the writings from Greek and Roman times.
---
Also, from what I've read, at least in Spain, cleanliness and/or education (outside of the Church) put one at risk for being accused to the Inquisition as being a secret Jew or Muslim.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
[ May 13, 2008, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
I could go on and on for hours about why the confusion of "Darwinism" (read: evolution by natural selection) with other scientific theories and even unanswered, as-yet-untheoried scientific questions makes me flaming mad.
The theory of evolution by natural selection does not seek to - nor has it ever needed to - explain anything other than how organisms change over time in response to their environment. That's it. That's all there is to it. "Darwinism" never once sought to explain abiogenesis or any of the other problems over which Card and Stein and other supporters of allowing the ID non-science into the science classroom feel confused. Science is OK with saying, "We don't know yet, but we're trying to find out." There is nothing wrong in science with admitting that there are gaps in the knowledge. And no serious scientist, nor any serious student of the sciences, has ever claimed that "Darwinism" explains the origin of life, defines what life is, or even touches on the various other mysteries of the universe. Evolution by natural selection ONLY shows how life changes over time. It doesn't pretend to hold a theory for anything else, period.
Insisting that just because scientists don't understand yet how life began, it MUST have been an "intelligence" that did it all is grossly disturbing. There is less scientific evidence for intelligent design than there is for DNA arising via lighting striking the primordial soup. And the existence of an intelligence capable of designing life with a purpose only opens up an infinity of questions. The idea of intelligent design is nothing but an infinite regress of questions that can never be answered. ID supporters expect serious scientists and students of science to accept the idea that a magical being who is outside the realm of understanding did it all, even though the very purpose of science is to understand the true and real cause and effect of the observable world. "Magic intelligent being did it all for totally unknowable purpose" doesn't fit into that framework and is, frankly, completely silly in the context of science.
It's fine with me if people want to have religious beliefs. Variety is the spice of life, and there are plenty of good reasons to be religious if that suits you. But it is not okay to put the pseudoscience of ID into the science classroom. It's wonderful for students to say, "Wait...where did life come from in the first place?" That's great! The more people wonder about that very question, the more likely it is we'll some day find an answer to that question. It's fine for kids and adults to question science. After all, scientists question science all the time.
It's not okay to brush off such a serious and important question by saying, "Well, since we don't have a well-developed theory yet, I guess we should just assume that some unknowable intelligent being did it for a purpose that was all his own. Also, we can never begin to understand the intelligent being, so stop trying to inquire right now. It's not possible to ever know the answers to this. Just be satisfied with the idea that some intelligent being did it." How disturbing!
Let kids question science all they want. Let them explore it. Let them dissent. Let them research and find answers to their questions. Don't fill their heads in the process with such unscientific ideas as "Magic man did it." That's just insulting to everybody's intelligence.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
My understanding, for what it's worth, is that initially learning and science everywhere outside of Asia were fostered by religion as a means of understanding God/Allah/whichever deity was worshiped in that time and place. It was only when science began to show that deities were inherently illogical and likely to not exist at all that religious institutions began opposing scientific advancements and decrying them as "the work of the devil" or whichever "bad guy" suits the religion you're examining.
Asia's progress was only different because most Asian "religions" do not include the belief in deities and are essentially atheistic. In many cases the focus of these philosophies is on the natural world by itself, without the assignment of a personal god/gods to make things work. Therefore, there was no need for the establishments to get in the way of science and try to hold it back or denounce it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't know the period that well, but I was under the impression that most of the growth came from exposure to Muslims, who were the ones doing most of the discovery and who preserved the writings from Greek and Roman times.
And how would Europeans have even come into contact with Muslims if not for the Crusades? Hmmmm??? So there!!!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
sarmup, I can certainly emphasize with having a lot of knowledge about a subject that contradicts common beliefs about it and with either not having the time or not really feeling the inclination to do other people's research for them when the information is extremely easy to access.
That being said, the pages you linked me to don't really answer my question about what discoveries were being made in the Middle Ages and only tangentially touched on cleaniness and education putting you at risk with the Spanish Inquisition.
I've no problem with reading sources you suggest rather than you having to do all the work for me, but that's not going to help if they don't contain what I'm looking for.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ungh someone woke me up and had me read this article not telling me who wrote it.
I kind of shuffled through it.
I liked these parts — "Expelled is not trying to preach or even defend ID" and "Ben Stein links Darwinism with, of all things, the Holocaust. But that is one of the most important – and valid – points in the movie. First, Hitler was a Darwinist."
So I read again, just to make sure that the article was as massively retarded as I thought it was.
then my friend asked me "What do you think?"
I got some coffee started and I mulled over this test and wondered what was behind it and said 'umm it's pretty phenomenally dumb, why?'
and he said something like 'you sure you want to say phenomenally dumb?'
And I said '.. yeah?'
And he pulled out the surprise and said 'ha ha, I thought you liked orson scott card!'
I told him it wasn't much of a surprise because I've been watching this progressive freefall in OSC's nonfiction and wouldn't think to defend them anyway.
MORAL OF STORY: seriously guys, that article was pretty indefensibly braindead. OSC is sticking up for a petty piece of weakly reasoned propaganda, the most amazingly poor one in recent memory, to boot.
It just grinds gears on his credibility (what's left of it, I .. suppose?) when he rants about the smug liberals and their terrible "play fast and loose with the truth" technique and then in the same article says hey but this expelled movie is something you should see nur nur nur nur Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Squick, the point I'm kinda failing to make is that Serious philosophical and scientific research DID occur in the Middle Ages, as evidenced by the philosopher Aquinas (who was touched on) and my earlier comment about humeric medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_medicine or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism) shows that while the scientific method didn't quite exist yet, people were still working toward making discoveries to make everyone's lives a little better.
While I am not incredibly informed about Medieval Hygiene and Spanish history (my emphasis is elsewhere in Medieval pursuits), I happen to know people who *are*, and will converse with them to get to the bottom of that particular claim. I'm not brushing off your question, but I'm simply trying to say that many things people assume about the middle ages are simply wrong, and I'm willing to give the Spanish Inquisition the benefit of a modicum of doubt.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I am simply avoiding both extremes because I feel neither is true. Mendal became a monk before he attended university. It was quite common for monks to be encouraged to study all the classic studies of the day so that they could better teach theology. Jesuits were especially famous for their establishment of universities and colleges that emphasized both theology and science.
Avoiding the extremes doesn't mean the truth isn't closer to one of the extremes than the other. From your arguments, that appears to be what your saying, but I think it can be safely said that most scientific discovery in human history was done without Church/religious support (which does not mean that the church actively interfered).
Now that doesn't bother me, because scientific research really shouldn't be a church's concern, so it should surprise no one and shouldn't be seen as a slight against the church that this is the case.
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am curious.
What percentage of the Christian population is Young-Earth Christians?
No, that's the wrong question.
What percentage of the US population would be considered Textual Literalists in either the Bible, Torah, or Koran?
Because, honestly, those are the people who find direct contradiction in moder scientific theories that they label together under the phrase "Evolution" or "Darwinism."
This small percentage who believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old, or 6,000, or 3,000 or however many years old can not fit the millions of years the evolutionary process would have taken into their time-limited universe.
They don't like this contradiction to their core beliefs to be taught in State run schools. The State is basically saying that their religion is wrong.
However, their numbers are so small that no one else seems to want to take up their cause.
So they stretch the contradiction.
Now science is not contradicting their young-earth religions, its contradicting ALL religion!!!!
Now more of the religious believers out there listen to this fear and start protesting on the side of their young-earth brethren. After all, to not do so puts you in the camp of the non-believers.
Now a movement has emerged that puts the livelihoods and beliefs of many secular folks at risk.
They don't see a small group of Young-Earth believers facing them. They see a large organization of Believers, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.
The only thing this group has in common is faith and their anti-evolutionary arguments.
That is why some of the secularists start turning against everyone of faith.
Which drives more people of faith to attack the secularists, etc, etc.
All because a small minority of those of faith can not reconcile that faith with what Science has proclaimed.
Its a shame.
However, before you people of faith start labeling Evolution as Satan's Science, realize that it only disagrees with the small percentage of you who are literalists, are Young Earth believers.
And before you secularists start labeling Faith as the tool of ignorance, realize that the unshakable foundation that science is to your world, a young, Genesis based creation as written down in the Holy books, is to some people, and they don't want their kids forced to lie or fail a test because they believe differently than you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that's just too bad. If they insist on having their children make assertions which are massively contradicted by the evidence, then they'll just have to get used to their children failing honest tests. You would not defend a religion which believed that two and two make five; creationism is a very short step up from that level of dishonesty.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: swbarnes2: I don't think I am grasping at straws. And I think you are confusing my defense of church sanctioned research with another poster's belief that all scientific research came through the church.
Ah, you are right. My mistake.
quote:I don't know the motives behind Mendal's experiment, but it's doubtlessly true that monks were encouraged to be smart and to conduct research.
At some times, maybe. But can you demonstrate that it was true in this case?
If the church was supporting all this research, can you name another, say, two monks who were so supported?
I'm not even sure you can demonstrate that this was true for a majority of the 2000 year history of the church. The church's business was saving souls, not looking at planets through telescopes.
quote:It's false that Christianity even in the middle ages stifled all scientific progress.
Of course not. At the very least, I'm sure that the science of beer-making was an exception.
As for Mendal's data, he reported that the 7 traits he studied all assorted independantly. This is only possible if those 7 traits are all on separate chromosomes. Pea plants only have 7 chromosomes. As far as I know, the data that Mendal reported are accurate, those 7 traits do assort independantly, but the odds of him hitting on 7 traits on 7 chromosomes by chance is quite small. What's most likely is that he studied more than 7, and then reported on the 7 that matched his simple genetic model, and just didn't report the data that didn't match his model. Not good scientific technique, but there's a limit to how much one man could research alone. Perhaps if the church had given Mendel more time and more helpers, he might have been able to sort out gene linkage, and been able to publish a more complete model of inheritence. As it was, he published what he understood, but it was enough to get people started.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I haven't seen Stein's movie, so I can't comment on the validity of whatever methods he uses in his film. I also am not an expert on evolution, so I won't comment on the validity of claims that the evidence for it is flawed.
However, I will comment on what seems to be the main issue OSC is talking about in his article: the claim that scientists act too dogmaticly about evolution. And I will say that in my experience, it is extremely difficult to deny that the scientific community is pretty disrespectful towards dissenting opinions on the intelligent design issue. The professors I've had in college that discussed the topic and most commentary I've read by scientists seem to suggest many scientists consider evolutionary theory to be irrefutable fact, view efforts to question it as dangerous to science in general, and define such efforts as inherently unscientific. I will admit that it is certainly possible this anecdotal evidence on my part may be a coinsidence; maybe I have just happened to have come across the few scientists who take such a dogmatic viewpoint. However, I'm inclined to think it is not a coinsidence.
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. To understand what is or is not within the scope of valid science, one needs to do some combination of philosophical analysis on what science is and/or systematically study how scientists have operated throughout history. There are real experts that dedicate their academic lives to that studying exactly that, and they have come to many conflicting conclusions about the true boundaries of science - some of which would contain Intelligent Design, many of which would not. It is not a clear cut issue. So it is a problem when scientists who have expertise in genetics or biology or some other discipline (rather than in the study of science itself), simply assume their understanding of the nature of science is correct, and then exclude ideas accordingly. It is in some ways similar to the classical music player who considers rap to be "not real music". It may, in fact, be true that Intelligent Design Theory can't possibly be "real science" in any form - but it isn't obvious. And, even if it does seem obvious to you, it certainly isn't a good reason to be disgusted by the fact that some people don't see it as obvious. There are far far better things to be disgusted about.
Of course, it is no secret what motivates scientists and others to feel that way. It's pretty clear that lots of Intelligent Design enthusiasts are playing dirty, plain and simple. Often they spin and distort the facts, or even make stuff up, in order to advocate a view that typically comes more from religion than any science-based evidence. But I don't think the best solution is to respond in kind. It is sort of like trying to respond to diry politics with dirty politics of your own - it usually just ends up muddying up everything. That is why I'd prefer if the scientific community stuck to the high road, and respect those who are trying to find flaws in evolution, even while critically and fairly judging any evidnece such dissenters put forward.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It may, in fact, be true that Intelligent Design Theory can't possibly be "real science" in any form - but it isn't obvious.
Yes, it is. You don't understand scientific epistemology. You never have, but you continuously try to use your ignorance as a tool.
It's not complex and shifting. There really aren't that many rules. ID violates them. It cannot be science. It is outside its scope.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And I will say that in my experience, it is extremely difficult to deny that the scientific community is pretty disrespectful towards dissenting opinions on the intelligent design issue. The professors I've had in college that discussed the topic and most commentary I've read by scientists seem to suggest many scientists consider evolutionary theory to be irrefutable fact, view efforts to question it as dangerous to science in general, and define such efforts as inherently unscientific.
That is because the only criticisms of evolution that have actually appeared over the past 150 years have been, bluntly, stupid and repetitive. Sorry, but there it is. If anyone wanted to come up with an intelligent, testable critique of evolutionary theory, scientists would welcome it. But after 150 years of refuting the same three stupid arguments presented as though they were new and exciting, the community has understandably got a wee bit testy on the subject.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
In my experience scientists would be happy to listen to an actual flaw. The problem is very few non-experts have enough knowledge to make an intelligent statement on the issue. If you read over some of the debates with resh on the boards, he admits to not understanding many basic scientific ideas, which are crucial to understanding the evidence behind evolutionary theory (ex PCR). Scientists LOVE ripping each others work apart, they love pointing out flaws and gaps in data. But they also expect people who point out the flaws in their data to have taken the time to understand it first.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That is why I'd prefer if the scientific community stuck to the high road, and respect those who are trying to find flaws in evolution, even while critically and fairly judging any evidnece such dissenters put forward.
I believe the scientific community does respect those who try to find flaws in evolutionary theory. I would not include ID advocates in this camp, however.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Scientists LOVE ripping each others work apart, they love pointing out flaws and gaps in data.
It's been my experience that, in the scientist circles I travel in, a friend is someone who tries to destroy your ideas before they are published. And, honestly, they're doing you a favor.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I haven't seen Stein's movie, so I can't comment on the validity of whatever methods he uses in his film. I also am not an expert on evolution, so I won't comment on the validity of claims that the evidence for it is flawed.
However, I will comment on what seems to be the main issue OSC is talking about in his article: the claim that scientists act too dogmaticly about evolution. And I will say that in my experience, it is extremely difficult to deny that the scientific community is pretty disrespectful towards dissenting opinions on the intelligent design issue.
Creationism doesn't deserve any intellectual or scientific respect, because it has no intellectual or scientific validity.
If you disagree, by all means, present the intellectual and scientific positives of Creationism.
quote:The professors I've had in college that discussed the topic and most commentary I've read by scientists seem to suggest many scientists consider evolutionary theory to be irrefutable fact, view efforts to question it as dangerous to science in general, and define such efforts as inherently unscientific.
If "scientists" really think that evolution is inarguable fact, why are they haveing discussions like this:
"Russ Doolittle presented an analysis based on individual folds in proteins that clearly resolved the Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes, while a distant relative, Ford Doolittle, argued that the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer at the bacterial level made any such trees questionable, or at best uninformative. Meanwhile, Thomas Cavalier-Smith argued forcefully that gene-based trees miss out on significant evolutionary events, such as the transition that gave the Archaea a radically different membrane chemistry. Almost anyone who touched on the subject (and there were several speakers that did) gave a confused picture of what the genome of a Eukaryote looked like before it first took a mitochondrion on board. "
Scientific questions of a scientific theory are never unscientific. Do you argue that ID is scientific?
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.
Whereas you think that evolution, and evolution alone should be defined by young Earth Creationists instead?
Rather than hypothesize, why don't you give us an example where you think that the scientific community has erred in this way.
quote:In most disciplines, but especially in the case of science, this is not true.
Really? Can you name one technical term that you use at your job, that has a definition completely contrary to what you and the community of experts in your field think it should mean?
quote:To understand what is or is not within the scope of valid science, one needs to do some combination of philosophical analysis on what science is and/or systematically study how scientists have operated throughout history.
Science is about testing hypotheses with real data. It's really that simple.
quote:There are real experts that dedicate their academic lives to that studying exactly that, and they have come to many conflicting conclusions about the true boundaries of science - some of which would contain Intelligent Design, many of which would not.
Can you name one who does count ID as science?
quote:It is not a clear cut issue.
No, when the ringleader of ID claims that ID is the logos of John recast in scientific jargon, then it's clear cut. When ID journals languish because not a soul has any research to publish, it's pretty clear cut.
quote:So it is a problem when scientists who have expertise in genetics or biology or some other discipline (rather than in the study of science itself), simply assume their understanding of the nature of science is correct, and then exclude ideas accordingly.
I'd argue that those who can, do, those who can't, philosophize.
But regardless, can you name these philosophers of science who do think that ID is real science? I'm inclined to think you made them up, but I stand ready to be corrected if you can furnish a name that satisfies the board.
quote:It may, in fact, be true that Intelligent Design Theory can't possibly be "real science" in any form - but it isn't obvious.
They don't do research. They are Creationists. That's what makes it obvious.
quote:There are far far better things to be disgusted about.
The fallacy of relative privation?
Sorry, but ID is Creationism. If you want to defend an pack of obvious lies that's your problem. I don't see why I should apologize for opposing it.
quote:Of course, it is no secret what motivates scientists and others to feel that way.
A respect for science and honesty explains it pretty well.
quote:But I don't think the best solution is to respond in kind.
But ID isn't about science. It's about politics. The only way to engage politics is with politics. Certainly, there's no more battle on the science front. ID lost that one decades ago.
quote:It is sort of like trying to respond to diry politics with dirty politics of your own - it usually just ends up muddying up everything.
Scientist are continuing to do work. And pro-science advocates continue to fight to keep creationism out of public schools. Which is how it should be. Do you think otherwise?
quote:That is why I'd prefer if the scientific community stuck to the high road, and respect those who are trying to find flaws in evolution, even while critically and fairly judging any evidnece such dissenters put forward.
So you think that science adovacates should abandon the public schools to teaching Creationism, because they shouldn't muddy themselves with the "dirt" of politics? You think that the scientific community should say nothing as people lie about Creationism being science? You think that scientists should bend over backwards to treat ID as legitimate science, even though it clearly isn't? And that the scientific community should respect the Creationists who call them Nazis and killers?
Can you even give us an example of what "evidence" you think the ID advocates have brought forth that you think has been ignored by the scientific community?
Really, there are plenty of issues in the world where there is a legitimate stand on both sides. This is not one of them.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If there were a serious group trying to have Flat Earth taught in schools, scientists would treat them the same way they treat ID people now. Get some real science, or take your faith-based system back to your church, where it belongs.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Here is a small distinction between Science and the pseudo-science of Intelligent design -
Science-
"Well, I understand this part, and I've figured out that part, but this last part is amazing and incomprehensible -- it's like magic."
Pseudo-Science/Religion -
"Well, I understand this part, and I've figured out that part, and I've also figured out this last amazing part -- it's magic."
Any scientist can disbelieve aspects of evolution and Darwinism, and propose alternative explanations. I have a hard time believing science would deny that right of scientific theory, but when the conclusion of that scientific theory is 'It's magic', then all bets are off.
You have to explain the natural world within the realm of the natural world, or you are not explaining anything at all.
Now there will always be aspects of science that we don't understand. Currently, we don't understand chemistry or electricity, but even in our known and clear ignorance, we have enough of a working theory to make those entities work for us. Flip the light switch and the lights come on. Even if we don't fully and completely understand how and why the lights come on, we do understand it well enough to make it work.
I have no doubt that near the end of this century, assuming we don't destroy ourselves, we will understand a lot more about electricity, chemistry, AND Evolution. A century from now we will look back on 2000, the same way we now look back on 1900, slap ourselves in the forehead and say, oh my God, how did they ever survive, they were practically living in the stone age.
But no aspect of science will ever be advanced by the statement 'It's Magic'. We can see that aspect as 'like magic' and try to find the natural explanation for how and why it is. But 'It's Magic' doesn't further scientific inquiry, it stops it.
Yet, I do believe there is an element of magic in science. The natural wonders that science reveals only confirms the immense complexity of the universe and shows a divine hand it it. That said, I reconfirm, that the answer to any scientific question will NEVER be 'it's magic'.
There are wonders beyond wonders to be revealed in the natural universe, but only if we try to discover what is at the heart of this process that is so like magic to our current sphere of knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is advanced by taking what seems magic, and making it not magic, but with the fall of each new 'like magic', a million new magical things are revealed.
In my view, science makes the magic of the natural universe known to us, and that merely reveal how magical it truly is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If "scientists" really think that evolution is inarguable fact, why are they haveing discussions like this:
"Russ Doolittle presented an analysis based on individual folds in proteins that clearly resolved the Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes, while a distant relative, Ford Doolittle, argued that the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer at the bacterial level made any such trees questionable, or at best uninformative. Meanwhile, Thomas Cavalier-Smith argued forcefully that gene-based trees miss out on significant evolutionary events, such as the transition that gave the Archaea a radically different membrane chemistry. Almost anyone who touched on the subject (and there were several speakers that did) gave a confused picture of what the genome of a Eukaryote looked like before it first took a mitochondrion on board. "
But none of these hypotheses contradict that evolution, as such, took place. What they are saying is "I think we got here by path A, path B, or path C." All the paths are within the overall theory of evolution, though. I think you are a bit orthogonal to the question Tres was posing.
quote:Currently, we don't understand chemistry or electricity,
I must say I disagree with that. What parts of chemistry and electricity do you feel are badly understood?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But none of these hypotheses contradict that evolution, as such, took place. What they are saying is "I think we got here by path A, path B, or path C." All the paths are within the overall theory of evolution, though. I think you are a bit orthogonal to the question Tres was posing.
Yeah, I was a bit indirect. My point was Tres seems to think that scientists think they know everything about evolution, and that's why they don't tolerate anyone saying they don't, or anyone saying they might be wrong abotu some of it. But that isn't true. There are still questions about evolution. And they are discussed all the time by scientists.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
King of Men,
I like to use 'chemistry and electricity' as an example when discussing our incomplete knowledge of science, which usually comes up in discussions of Evolution, because the atomic theory that explains Chemistry FAILS to explain Electricity. So, in explaining the workings of Electricity, we use an alternative atomic theory.
For sake of simplicity, the Atomic Theory or Model that works perfectly for Chemistry, I will call the Solar System Atomic Model. This is a model in which each atom of a substance looks like a solar system; protons and neutron in the middle with electrons orbiting around that.
Using this model, we can piece together virtually any workable chemical combination.
However, that model falls apart when you try to explain Electricity. The model for Electricity looks more like 'Tinker Toys'. I think it might be called 'covalent bonds', but don't quote me on that.
However, while that model works perfectly for electricity, it fall apart completely for chemistry.
Consequently, we don't have full knowledge of either. Somewhere out there is a Universal Atomic Theory/Model that will, when discovered, explain both simultaneously.
From a practical perspective, it doesn't really matter what is happening at the atomic level, or that we have to use two or more models to make our world work. We can spin wire in a magnetic field and create electricity and transmit that electricity to houses around the country. We can mix chemicals together in predictable way and get the results we expect. Even if we can't full and universally explain how we get those results.
Now apply that to Evolution; yes, there are huge gapping holes in Evolution, but no more than any other science. Just as in all branches of science, I'm sure there is plenty more like-magic to be reveal in Evolution.
My point being that we don't throw Evolution out because it is incomplete any more than we throw electricity or chemistry out because they are incomplete. And we don't explain or discount any of it with the explanation 'it's magic'; magical - yes, but magic - no.
Does that help?
Steve/bluewizard
[ May 13, 2008, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I know this is Strawman argument, but I couldn't help myself.
ID arguer vs Evolution arguer.
I: Hey look, I found a blue rock. E: Hmm, the rock looks white to me. I: Disbeliever, its a blue rock, and that proves God exists because only God could make a blue rock, not painted blue or covered in blue, but blue. E: Huh? That doesn't follow. I: My logic is pure, as pure as this rock is blue. E: It looks white to me? I: Get your eyes checked. E: OK. (pause while E gets his eyes checked.) Nope, still looks white. I: What? White? Come on, see this mark here, this scuff mark? Certainly that is not white. E: No, that is a bit greyish, maybe black. I: See--Black, the opposite of white. E: But that's just.... I: How can a rock be white if its also black? Huh? Figure that out for me. You white-rock people are wrong. If you are wrong then I must be right, the rock is blue. E: Come on, beside those few marks, and a few specks... I: So you admit that there are several parts of the rock that are not white? E: Yes, of course. Only a colorblind fool would say that this rock is just one color. I: Now you are calling me a fool? Colorblind? E: No. Just.... I: You just admitted that this rock, which you have claimed to be white, is not all white. Some parts of it are other colors. E: Yes. I: Then you admit you and your science can be wrong. I, however, know that this rock is blue. All of it. Hence God exists. Do you deny that God exists. E: I am not talking about God. I: That is your problem. E: I am just saying that the rock is mostly white. I: You deny God. You would take away my right to worship God as I see fit, by telling everyone about the wonders of this blue rock. E: No. I'm just saying that the rock is white. I: Its a conspiracy. Every where you go white rock experts so jealous of their positions fight in vain to cover up the simple fact that the rock is blue. E: What cover up? What conspiracy? I look at the rock and it looks white. I: Really, I have sources, "You would have to be a colorblind fool to believe that." I believe that that quote would come from--you. E: Hey, that is not what I meant. I: Now we can't believe what you say, flip-flopping on this whole rock color thing. E: No. I always say the rock is White. I: Well you can have your opinion on the color of this rock. But its just an opinion. Its no better than my opinion. E: Sure, you opinion is no better than mine, except all the facts support the claim that the rock is white. I: We need to go to that Geology class and teach the whole world the truth, that I have a blue rock, so God must exist. E: You can't teach children that the rock is blue. Its white. It will confuse them. Art, Optics, anything involving color will be set back decades if we raise a generation who believe that white is blue. I: And what if we continue to teach them that this blue rock isn't blue? What if we teach them that there is no God. How will God treat us then?
_____
The truth is that the rock was green.
Of course, E was able to adjust his ideas once this was shown to be true.
I. Still insists its blue.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I like to use 'chemistry and electricity' as an example when discussing our incomplete knowledge of science, which usually comes up in discussions of Evolution, because the atomic theory that explains Chemistry FAILS to explain Electricity. So, in explaining the workings of Electricity, we use an alternative atomic theory.
For sake of simplicity, the Atomic Theory or Model that works perfectly for Chemistry, I will call the Solar System Atomic Model. This is a model in which each atom of a substance looks like a solar system; protons and neutron in the middle with electrons orbiting around that.
Well, ok, at high-school level this is true, but it's a lie-to-children. Quantum mechanics accounts for both electricity and chemistry in one model, and incidentally the solar-system model of the atom doesn't really work for anything more complex than, say, ethanol.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Can you even give us an example of what "evidence" you think the ID advocates have brought forth that you think has been ignored by the scientific community?
If I actually tried to answer this with evidence, is there any chance you'd do something other than find a way to reject my response? I've seen how these debates go before...
But beyond that, I'm not going to get into the scientific evidence of this issue because I really don't know it - I'm neither a scientist nor someone who spends his time investigating the evidence behind the evolution debate. I'm not trying to suggest I am, or to suggest I could tell you what theories are best. As far as I'm concerned, on matters of science, I usually go with whatever the scientific experts most accept. 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.
quote:But they also expect people who point out the flaws in their data to have taken the time to understand it first.
This is a valid point. The trouble comes when it is assumed that rejecting the accepted theory is proof that you don't understand it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:This is a valid point. The trouble comes when it is assumed that rejecting the accepted theory is proof that you don't understand it.
It is only assumed when, as so often happens, the person uses the words "random" and "chance" to indicate what they think evolution is.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
ARGH! CRUSADE ON RANDOM!
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB] [QUOTE]If I actually tried to answer this with evidence, is there any chance you'd do something other than find a way to reject my response? I've seen how these debates go before...
Well, make a claim whose factual validity you will stand behind, and we'll see.
I'm perfectly willing to put concrete claims up for scrutiny. Are you?
quote:But beyond that, I'm not going to get into the scientific evidence of this issue because I really don't know it - I'm neither a scientist nor someone who spends his time investigating the evidence behind the evolution debate.
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.
And the honest thing to do whever 5 people who know a more than you do on the subject tell you that your understanding is wrong, and you are too lazy to determine if they are right, is to believe them, and stop believing and propegating your wrong understanding.
quote:I'm not trying to suggest I am, or to suggest I could tell you what theories are best. As far as I'm concerned, on matters of science, I usually go with whatever the scientific experts most accept.
Okay...so what are the exceptions, and why are those cases exceptional?
quote: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.
This isn't about dissent agaisnt the scientific community. There is already a perfectly approiate venue for scientific disagreements: and that's to do more science.
That's not what Creationists want. It's about Creationists teaching that their religions is scientifically true, and lying about the real scientific facts. And you seem to think that scientists are being dogmatic if they say thats a bad idea.
quote:I'd be happy if this were just an illusion, and if scientists were all totally open-minded towards the issue.
Scientists are perfectly open to evidence. But you've as much as admitted that ID advocates have none that you know of.
You think that they should be more open to being called Nazis and killers? That they should be more open to Creationist falsehoods? If you think that scientists should be more open to your favorite unevidenced religious convictions, then just say so plainly.
quote:Perhaps it is.
Nice try. It does you no good to pretend that you are open to having your opinion changed on this, when after 5 knowledgeable people tell you that you are wrong, you continue to believe the same thing.
quote:Consider my thoughts only applicable to those very few (or many) who do hold a dogmatic approach towards the accepted scientific model.
And you never have not a word to say against the dogmatic people who insist that ID is valid.
But okay, so where's the evidence that there are "many" scientists who are being dogmatic, and are ignoring important evidence that would undermine theory understanding of evolution?
And what is that evidence again? Oh yes, you don't know of any.
quote:This is a valid point. The trouble comes when it is assumed that rejecting the accepted theory is proof that you don't understand it.
Again, there are plenty of times in the world where assuming that the person who disagrees with the consensus is crazy or lying or totally ignorant is wrong.
But this is not one of those cases. There really is no legitiamte, informed, honest way to completely reject evolution as the best explanation of the data.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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? Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Tres:
I'm really not understanding here.
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?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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?
No.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
As for "fact", that's why I included the "if" to clarify under exactly what circumstances my answer to his question would be yes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Squicky,
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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?
[ May 14, 2008, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
What about string theory?
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.))
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What about string theory?
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.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Tres:
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.
And that's a fact.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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?"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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
:nod:
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I have to admit, this is the first time I've seen anyone try to use himself in an appeal to authority. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
What is Tres's exact definition of ID? Also just noting, the head of the human genome project is a Christian.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
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?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
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?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
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.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
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.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB]
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.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
heh heh heh petty fights Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
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?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
[ May 15, 2008, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
[ May 16, 2008, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
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?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
) . ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) isn't scientific either. Which is, frankly, laughable, and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the subject.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)