This is to carry on the conversation (that had nothing to do with OSC) we were having in the locked thread. I will start by addressing Samprimary's post.
I said: "There is a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.
swbarnes2 said: "And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?"
Me: "That's a tu quoque. I never said that."
Samprimary said : "Tu Quoque is a form of Ad Hominem, a red herring and not related to your charge."
You want to rescind that statement?
Oh, crap, I got class. I'll be back later.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Oh, crap, I got class.
This is debatable depending on the purpose of this thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, errr...Samp was right. You used the term incorrectly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I admit to not being quite clear on this. Just what does 'tu quoque' mean? It looks like it ought to be 'you too!'.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'll be back later.
That sounds SO familiar! But surely resh will come back and defend his arguments. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Nice one, Javert. I walked right into that one.
It does, KoM, in essence. "You, also" is the literal translation.
Let me break it down in simple terms for you, Squicky.
"You have a political agenda."
"So do you!"
Not a tu quoque? Definitely not a Red Herring like Sam thinks, but it is a form of the ad hominem like he says. Do want to rescind your statement?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
SORRY Morbo. I wish I had the time management skills that OSC has. This forum is a pleasure that unfortunately has a lower priority than most of my obligations. I can't help it if you interpret my absences as running away from arguments.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
KoM, Tu quoque does mean "You, also". It's a fallacious arguing tactic that responds to a criticism by pointing out that the criticism applies to the person making the criticism, when this is irrelevant to the first statement.
It was applied incorrectly in this case because Samp did not direct his comment at Resh and because Samp's comment about the antis was relevant to the initial criticism.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, that's what you said when you ran away from defending your arguments in the Dang, we have to update evolution again thread.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
No, maybe you misunderstood, Mr Squicky. I said that swbarne's statement was a Tu Quoque. Sam was the one who jumped in and said that it was not. I'm not saying Sam is guilty of the fallacy. I'm saying he is wrong in saying that it is not the fallacy I say it is. (That sentence could be written better.)
I said that those on the Global Warming side have a political agenda (regardless of the truth of the science). He (swbarnes) argued back by saying that those who deny Global Warming have a political agenda also. Since he falls under the Global Warming side and I fall under the Deniers side, that makes it a Tu Quoque.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No it doesn't, for the reasons I stated above. You are also distorting your publically viewable statements. You said something substantially different from what you are claiming you said.
I did however mix up Samp and swbarnes.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
How does it not apply?
A Tu Quoque, in your own words, is a "fallacious arguing tactic that responds to a criticism by pointing out that the criticism applies to the person making the criticism, when this is irrelevant to the first statement."
This isn't what happened? And how did I distort my statements? I cut and pasted, and then I boiled them down to their most essential elements. Let me go back to the original thread and see where I might have gone wrong.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
From your first link: A Tu Quoque "is an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it." Emphasis mine.
Got anything else?
[edit] I just realized that someone other than Squicky posted those links. I assume they were just for everyone's edification, Javert, or are you taking a side?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Sed... ego loqui latinam speravi.
Losers. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Damn. Owned. Translation please?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
"But... I hoped to speak Latin."
Double losers. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Just trying to inject a little precision into the squabble. Carry on.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Loqui= speak, speravi= hope. My decent spanish should have helped me understand that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Nice one, Javert. I walked right into that one.
I love how I can feel like I'm involved with a thread without actually being here. Thanks kat!
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
<offtopic>
Resh,
I just have to say that I saw your name and I finally got where it came from. That is definately my favorite movie in the series.
</offtopic>
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I was surprised when a thread pertaining to politics was locked. I have never seen that before. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I said that those on the Global Warming side have a political agenda (regardless of the truth of the science). He (swbarnes) argued back by saying that those who deny Global Warming have a political agenda also. Since he falls under the Global Warming side and I fall under the Deniers side, that makes it a Tu Quoque.
I like how you are not only reinventing your own publicly viewable statements, but you are implying things unsaid by swbarnes to artificially force his statement to fit your charge of 'tu quoque.' Seeing as how you've recently taken to peppering your posts with charges of formally named logical fallacies, you may be interested in the fact that this represents a fallacious act in and of itself, of a form that has a very overplayed name.
But!
Let's step back from this preliminary attempt at distortion and take a look at what actually happened in the thread.
RESHPEC: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.
SWBARNES: And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?
RESHPEC: That's a tu quoque. I never said that.
Reading swbarnes' statement, there's an easy extrapolation. He's pointing out something which has been pointed out to you before, multiple times: the pejorative charge behind global warming consensus as having a 'political agenda' is pretty valueless as a charge in support of the position of the global warming deniers, given that this group is demonstrably afflicted by political agendas as well. What is essentially being said is a counterpoint.
The counterpoint is valid and not fallacious. What would have made it a logical fallacy of the Tu Quoque variety would be if swbarnes' had said something to the effect of "No statement a global warming denier could make about the political agenda of global warming consensus could be true, because they are associated with a position that is guilty of the same thing." Hence the name of the fallacy: You Too.
More simply, if he had said that your charge of global warming theory's political agenda could not be true *because* you had or were associated with a position that exhibited the same 'flaw' -- that would have been Tu Quoque.
Other people may be compelled to explain this more exhaustively or quantitatively than me, but this is sufficient for my purposes whether or not I believe you willing or able to accept your mistake.
quote: Definitely not a Red Herring like Sam thinks, but it is a form of the ad hominem like he says. Do want to rescind your statement?
quote:Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.
Tu quoque is the correct term for that. "You have this fault." "...Oh, yeah? Well, so do you!" is definitely a tu quoque.
A better refutation would have been, "Even if it is true that there is a political agenda behind global warming arguments, this does not establish that these arguments are false."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Tu quoque is the correct term for that. "You have this fault." "...Oh, yeah? Well, so do you!" is definitely a tu quoque.
That example is a personal attack. Is swbarnes statement an ad hominem?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Even if that statement was a tu quoque, I find the need to point that out funny, given that it was in response to a clear non sequitur. I'd think if he was so worked up about logical fallacies, he'd put more effort into not using them himself.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Thank you Qaz. I don't see how it is so difficult for Sam to realize this. In his attempts to explain how I was wrong, he proves me right. His quote: "Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser."
This is precisely what swbarnes tried to do. I thought the matter was closed when I quoted from wiki. And that is the second time I've been accused of twisting my "publicly viewable statements," but I have yet to see any explanation as to how I did that.
Now I recognize that simply because the Global Warming alarmists have a political agenda, this does not mean that they are wrong. It just provides a motive for why the science may not be quite as foolproof as the alarmists like to make it out to be. And swbarne's Tu quoque has teeth because of that fact, inasmuch as the deniers can be shown as well to have a motive for denying what may be rock-solid science. So I don't think it was a non-sequitur, Matt.
Final point; I concede it may have been a Red Heriing. As Sam points out by quoting fallacyfiles.org, the two are not mutually exclusive. Compromise? It was a Tu quoque, but it was also a Red Herring. Look, I've engaged in debates with classmates in a logic class where everyone (including the Professor) changed his or her mind as to whether a fallacy was one form or another (usually Straw Man versus Red Herring), so it's important to understand that there are often gray areas when it comes to informal fallacies. Truce then, and moving on?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So I don't think it was a non-sequitur, Matt.
Sure it was. I'm not going to start a thread to fight it out, but you were clearly attempting to show that the global warming arguments were somehow tainted because there are political motivations involved. That doesn't follow. It's a non sequitur.
What's interesting is that I don't think you can have it both ways here. If you claim that politicization is not relevant, then your first statement is a non sequitur. If your claim is that calling out the political motives behind AGW arguments is not a non sequitur with regard to the strength of those arguments, then a response that the anti-AGW arguments are also politically motivated cannot be a tu quoque because it simply applies a similar critique of the opponent's position on the same argument.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Hmm. That is interesting. One thing I have found sometimes about so-called logical fallacies is that even though they are, sometimes they still make a good point. I said as much concerning swbarnes Tu Quoque.
There is a difference, though, but whether it is relevant I'm not sure yet (because I haven't thought about it. Global Warming activists are trying to impose policy changes that will affect all of us. Those of us who are resisting have a political agenda that is defensive, or you might even say, conservative. This, I think, is a fundamental difference between what liberal progressive activism and conservative activism. It's the difference between being on the attack and being on the defense. That line is starting to blur now, because what we conservatives are doing could be construed as a counter-attack. Ahh, so much of this culture war is defined by the definitions.
Edit: the Non-sequitur. If what I was doing was trying to show the arguments as tainted because of the politics involved, perhaps. But if all I was trying to do was show that political motivations are a motive, regardless of the truth of the science, then no. I think it was a bit of both. So good point.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Okay, I went back and looked at it. This changes everything.
I said: "Taking the trust we place in experts with things like DNA evidence and particle physics (string-theory and inflation theory notwithstanding) and comparing it to trusting the "Global Warming" experts is the fallacy of Weak Analogy, for two reasons. One: there are dissenting voices from experts in the field with very plain-spoken arguments. Two: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments."
Not a non-sequitur, because I was trying to show that the comparison was weak, and for those two reasons. So saying that "global warming denial is [not as] pure as the driven snow" has nothing to do with the weakness of the analogy about "trusting the experts."
Do I win? (Just joking, but seriously; do I win?)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Making the assertion in the context of trying to support your claim of another fallacy does not prevent it from being a non sequitur.
EDIT: I said the opposite of what I meant. I've fixed that.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Thanks. But hey, I forgot that that was what I was doing, too. I just assumed like everyone else that I was trying to attack global warming activists with poorly formed arguments (as usual).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In his attempts to explain how I was wrong, he proves me right. His quote: "Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser."
I'm not proving you right about anything because what swbarnes' did was not a fallacy and it was not a personal attack. It wasn't a fallacy of Tu Quoque, not even under wikipedia's current vague double-definition. You're doing your best to concede the point that that little snipped isn't fallacious because you YOURSELF now admit that it makes a valid, logical point.
MattP said it best:
quote:If your claim is that calling out the political motives behind AGW arguments is not a non sequitur with regard to the strength of those arguments, then a response that the anti-AGW arguments are also politically motivated cannot be a tu quoque because it simply applies a similar critique of the opponent's position on the same argument.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
The whole debate changed because of my last post. We had forgotten what we were even talking about.I said that the analogy about trusting experts with DNA evidence being the equivalent to trustin experts about global warming was poor (whoever had made it, it probably wasn't even been swbarne.) The analogy was weak in part because there are politcal motivations behind global warming, but not DNA science (in general; I'm sure someone could conjure up some individual case.) So trying to turn around and say that my argument was weak because global warming skeptics (such as myself) have a political agenda is both a red herring and a tu quoque. I wasn't talking about the validity of the science; I was talking about the validity of the analogy. Is that clear enough? Or do you still have issue with it?
P.S. Granted, I am just as much at fault for allowing the focus to erroneously shift as anyone else; perhaps more so. And at a certain point I was on a weaker footing for it, though I think I still had some basis for my arguments. I'm also still curious about something. At what point did I start purposely twisting my own "publicly viewable statements?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The analogy was weak in part because there are politcal motivations behind global warming, but not DNA science
That doesn't create irrelevancy for swbarnes' statement. Your judgments rendered on global warming consensus include the pejorative conclusions about 'political motivations' and come from a group that's even more aptly charged with political motivations. It's directly related to qualifying your statements.
quote:So trying to turn around and say that my argument was weak because global warming skeptics (such as myself) have a political agenda is both a red herring and a tu quoque.
"Resh's argument is weak because Resh/Resh's group has a political agenda" is a red herring and a tu quoque fallacy. It's also not a statement that has been made, so at this point I can only congratulate you on managing to prove that an invented comment is what you think it is!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Too easy.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "Resh's argument is weak because Resh/Resh's group has a political agenda" is a red herring and a tu quoque fallacy. It's also not a statement that has been made, so at this point I can only congratulate you on managing to prove that an invented comment is what you think it is!
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2 And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, Sam. But if you want to debate the merits of my original statement as referenced by the first part of your post, that is fine. How, exactly, is one group more aptly charged with political motivations? And oh yeah! at what point did I start purposely twisting my own "publicly viewable statements?"
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Anyone else having 'Princess Bride' flashbacks? Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Never saw it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, Sam.
Thank you for putting swbarnes' statement right next to a statement which I pointed out that it is not equivalent to. It helps people see the lack of equivalence better and makes it easy to support my position!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Somehow I get the feeling that everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because no one wants to take my side.
Sam, how is "you're basing your argument on the fact that this position has a political agenda? But your side has a political agenda as well!" not a Tu Quoque? If you must admit that is the case, then your argument must be that that is not what, in essence, was said. In that case, would you explain how that is so? Because I'm certain you realize that swbarne was being sarcastic with that statement about the driven snow.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Somehow I get the feeling that everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because no one wants to take my side.
I think everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because they're smarter than I am and this thread is a ridiculous waste of time, presently devolved to hairsplit contentions over a pretty patently trivial issue. This is all stupid.
quote:In that case, would you explain how that is so?
The statement in question is a question. You are assuming that the line of thought that the question is going to follow will necessarily result in a fallacious argument. But you're jumping the gun. It's still just a question. If you answered swbarnes' question and he replied to it, it could result in a tu quoque ("I disregard your premises because your side also has a political agenda") or it could turn out that it's not where he was going with it at all, or if it was leading into another line of scrutiny involving your statements ("So then why can one use the 'political agenda' bit to distrust this side's science while simultaneously trusting in a side which has the same problems with bias?" or "Okay, so, conversely, if the political agenda matters in a way which makes global warming science untrustworthy, how about the science you're arbitrarily trusting from the people who made that charge?"). Without it yet being a personal attack, you're judging it only on unsaid assumptions that 'complete' the formula for you and allow you to pigeonhole the statement in question.
You don't yet have "Therefore, your position sucks." You don't yet have 'Therefore, P is dismissed.' You just went ahead and assumed that for your own benefit. It makes the named fallacy charge premature and (by definition!) incorrect!
Normally a trivial contention, right? Definitely not worth a thread, right?
Yeah, I'm sure.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Definitely. It is very stupid. I thought we would carry on with the bigger picture here, but it looks like you were the only one who wanted to, and over something you rightfully call quite trivial. I'm actually interested in going over the minutiae that one sometimes encounters in Logic. That being said, I'm pretty sure that swbarnes wasn't just asking an honest question. And do you think you are debating honestly by applying the most literal interpretation possible to his statement? I'm sure he would admit (if he'd just jump in for a minute) that he wasn't trying to lead "into another line of scrutiny," as you say. He would probably tell you that I was right on track.
Besides, you are still missing the point. I was using the political bias argument to discount a comparison that was being made, not the science of Global Warming itself. The comparison is only made on the one side, that "we should trust the experts." There is no analogue to that on the other side of the debate, so pointing out the political bias on my side has nothing to do with the weakness of the comparison that is being defended there. Thus, a Tu quoque.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Somehow I get the feeling that everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because no one wants to take my side.
I can assure you this isn't the case.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You mean I'm not generally despised around here? Or is it that everyone knows I'm wrong but is just being nice to me? I highly doubt that to be the case.
No, the real reason is that this could quite possibly be the most boring thread in the history of Hatrack, and possibly even the world.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Anyone else having 'Princess Bride' flashbacks?
By which I mean yes.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I think everyone else is pretty much staying out of this because they're smarter than I am and this thread is a ridiculous waste of time, presently devolved to hairsplit contentions over a pretty patently trivial issue. This is all stupid."
Damn right, Samp. That's precisely why I'm staying out of this.
If it becomes an actual discussion, say, about something like DNA, evolution et al, as there seemed to be brief hope of the thread that spawned this thread becoming, I might join in. But until then, I note, again, that this is hair-splitting of a trivial matter, and it simply isn't worth the amount of effort you two are putting into it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And do you think you are debating honestly by applying the most literal interpretation possible to his statement?
If 'most literal interpretation' means 'the interpretation that does not involve assumed supposition' then yes!
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
Feel free to theorize all the day long on my motivations.
Every time you post in such a vein, it will only prove to the rest of the board that you don't keep your earlier promises to engage the evidence.
I'm sure it's a conclusion long since reached by many people here. But having the hard evidence at hand is invaluable.
So go on, keep generating it. We will have, 6, 8, maybe 10 pages of proof that you can't defend your ridiculous claims on those other boards.
But that's fine. You obviously can't handle the heat of defending your earlier scientific statements, so you would be better off staying out of those particular kitchens.
The honest thing to do, of couse, is to openly concede that you can't defend them. But if you fail to do the honest thing, people will figure that out pretty quick on their own.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
What are you talking about? What scientific statements? We are talking about a logical fallacy here. Are you talking about the evolution debate? I thought I have been clear that I don't believe pure science is an adequate paradigm in which to discuss our origins, and I'm not qualified to discuss science in strictly scientific terms and under strictly scientific rules. This has disqualified my opinions from consideration. Of course, as I've said many times before, this doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Ok, I'll resurrect the thread. Look for it!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Okay, sometime this week, I promise.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
How do you verify the plausibility of non-scientific theories regarding origins?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Damn, that's a good question. I personally believe it's a pretty individualistic sort of thing.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"a pretty individualistic sort of thing"?
Explain. Further, how does an individualistic thing, if I'm right here, your own perceptions, in any way have to do with reality?
After all. The individualistic perception, of pretty much everyone, is that the sun and moon are moving around the Earth, not the other way around...
Or do you mean inside your heart, your beliefs? Because some people believe witches are cursing them, or that the clitoris causes disease and makes a woman unclean.
Forgive me for speculating, but you were vague and I'm trying to understand the kind of thing you mean.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think Resh is essentially saying that there is no objective evidence for non-scientific theories, which makes sense as objectiveness is the key goal of science practiced properly.
From his other posts, I get the impression that he thinks intuition and other subjective phenomena can provide valuable insight into the nature of the universe which science is incapable of exposing.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Thank you Matt, that's rather accurate. However, I wouldn't put so much emphasis on intuition as logic and philosophical reasoning. The most important distinguishing factor is that non-naturalistic causes are not simply ruled out a priori, which is a mistake for science, I think.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well... what would a non-naturalistic cause look like, exactly?
If we notice something affecting something else, we generally consider it part of nature, If we don't know what the thing affecting the other things are we look for it.
I mean, look at gravity. A bizarre thing when you think about it, something you cannot touch, or see, or anything like that. But we figured out how to measure its effects, in fact we figured out a lot about what causes it.
But yes. What would a non-naturalistic cause look like? Something that we only see the effects of, kind of like gravity? Again, I'm asking a serious question.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I know you are, and it's a good one, but fairly easy to answer. Non-naturalistic causes include divine revelations, miracles, that sort of thing. Also, I think that a lot of what are considered chemical reactions in the body are actually physical manifestations of something that is actually happening outside of material reality. Emotions, for instance. Psychological disorders, perhaps.
So you couldn't measure those things scientifically, but you can observe their physical manifestations. I think it is a mistake of science to automatically assume that those physical manifestations are all that is going on. I mean, maybe they are, but how could you possibly know? And isn't it arrogant to assume that you do and dismiss someone who does not assume the same thing?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think it is a mistake of science to automatically assume that those physical manifestations are all that is going on.
That's all that science can do. Non-naturalistic explanations prevent further investigation. If you presume that there is a supernatural cause for a phenomenon and that the cause cannot be observed, then there is no point in further investigation. It's only by assuming natural causes and creating hypothesis that assume natural causes that science progresses and our knowledge of the universe increases.
So far science's track record at find natural causes has been pretty good. It's only in the most distant past and the most complex structures where science scratches it's figurative head and says "that's a toughie" before cinching up it's belt and getting back to work.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm not saying that one should presume a supernatural cause for something. I'm just saying that I don't think it is wise to rule it out, especially when the material causes seem insufficient.
Sure scientific materialism/naturalism does a great deal toward explaining most observable phenomenon, but this would be consistent with an orderly universe created out of chaos (or nothing, depending on your religion). Taking naturalism so far as to claim that there exists nothing outside the material realm is a non-scientific assumption.
There are compelling arguments that say that the only way we can find the limits of knowledge through science is to assume naturalism, and I agree with that. But I believe it is this blind devotion to naturalism that has led to the death-grip that the scientific community has on evolution as the only possible explanation for our existence, even in the face of mounting evidence that says this could not possibly be the case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm just saying that I don't think it is wise to rule it out, especially when the material causes seem insufficient.
Who gets to decide when the material causes are insufficient? I mean, is it arrogant to say that gravity works even if God isn't pushing things together?
quote:even in the face of mounting evidence that says this could not possibly be the case...
You have been asked in three separate threads to produce a shred of this "mounting evidence." So far, you have simply stopped posting in each of those threads once it became obvious that you could not do so.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yes. Once again, I'd like to see said evidence.
I do assume you're speaking of evidence of the empirical persuasion, and not the non-naturalistic stuff that you seem to be admitting isn't scientific.
So, if my assumption is wrong, please correct me so we can both shrug our shoulders and be on our way, and thus go on to watch and see which side answers the remaining questions in a satisfactory manner first.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"Who gets to decide when the material causes are insufficient?"
I do. For me. How 'bout you?
"I mean, is it arrogant to say that gravity works even if God isn't pushing things together?"
No. But you reveal your lack of comprehension of what I was saying with this sentence.
Megabyte, you assume right. But when I do bring them up, I just get the same "refutations" shown to me and then apparently I get laughed out of town. You know, things like the very composition of DNA prevents it from being any sort of mechanism for increased information, that sort of thing.
But it's a waste of time. All that we do is engage in a debate by proxy. I'm not a scientist, and so anything I put out there is going to be secondhand, and someone else has already examined it and made some sort of counterpoint, and vice-versa. If you really want to understand what I know, just read the books that I read. If you want to convince me of the errors of my ways, then come up with some innovative way of telling me the same old story about evolution and maybe I'll get tricked into believing it, like the rest of you.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"You know, things like the very composition of DNA prevents it from being any sort of mechanism for increased information, that sort of thing. "
But, um, that's blatantly not true. The very composition of DNA in fact does the opposite, and is a great mechanism for increasing information.
But you're convinced it's all a lie, and from your statements, it seems any reasoning I use, anythin gI say, will merely be interpreted as some sort of trick.
How can you be so hyper-incredulous about the matter of evolution, while at the same time not apply those same standards to your Bible? If you used the same standards you're using, you'd certainly not believe in the Bible's validity, I'll tell yuo that.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Honestly, how is your view any better, any more based in reality, than the Amish guy my friend was dating recently?
"I won't listen to any explanation of your technology, it's all just lies and excuses for your evil witchcraft!"
I'm serious, that's what he was saying. So, hearing about him, hearing these words, a question came to mind, beyond my anger at such willful ignorance. How is your saying that the things that disagree with you are just "innovative ways to tell the same old story of evolution I've been tricked into believing" any different? It's hard for me to see a difference, especially when you show no evidence, and in fact attack the very idea of evidence, the very worth of evidence, by citing miracles and things that cannot be examined, when there's no way to see such things having happened.
More importantly, Resh: We ask for your evidence, you state that you've brought them out before, only to have them refuted.
Well, here's a great question: Have you ever thought, even just once, that the reason people are so casually able to refute your answers is because they're wrong?
Or are you really so arrogant as to feel that the refutations are because we've all been had, and you have the real truth, so that, as you've said, even the scientific method is essentially not right?
Are you really so arrogant as to assume that if everyone tells you you're wrong, and not only just tell you, but give reasons, many reasons, including data, evidence, and the sort of reasoning that you'd respect if given by Sherlock Holmes in a murder case, it means that they're all wrong, whereas your idea is right?
Do you really actually look at the evidence, and then reject anything that doesn't fit your worldview, the way, say, one of those Creation Science websites says you should? They say that any evidence that doesn't fit scripture is incorrect on principle, and must be an inaccurate piece of data. How do you find any truth if you assume anything that doesn't fit your preconcieved notions is an error? Or are you so arrogant that you believe you have perfect truth?
If you are presupposing your answer, how can you possibly find out if it's true or not? If you don't allow the possibility of being wrong, how can you adapt if you ARE wrong?
Your arrogance! Your unimaginable arrogance! The whole lot of you and your sinful, evil pride! How are you any better than an Amish man who says electricity is witchcraft, magic, and evil, and then, when you try to show them it's nto those things, that it's really a natural thing, that it's no more magic than a wheel or gravity, turns away and says he doesn't want to look at excuses, that it's all lies and the work of the devil, insists it's evil magic? How is your view any better than the evil the Amish practice?!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Forgive me, I'm angry. I'm taking it out on you, because I see similarities between the outrageous views the Amish I was hearing of had, and yours.
I equated them, and while I do see the similarity, I could be wrong. I don't think I am, though, but if other people present evidence that I'm wrong, my assumption will NOT, in fact, be that the evidence must be wrong because it disagrees with my beliefs. I'll actually look at the evidence, and attempt, in my imperfect human way, to look at things objectively.
To do otherwise would mean being as evil as that Amish man, and you, are, if my interpretation of your actions is as similar to the Amish man as I think they are.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But it's a waste of time. All that we do is engage in a debate by proxy. I'm not a scientist, and so anything I put out there is going to be secondhand, and someone else has already examined it and made some sort of counterpoint, and vice-versa. If you really want to understand what I know, just read the books that I read. If you want to convince me of the errors of my ways, then come up with some innovative way of telling me the same old story about evolution and maybe I'll get tricked into believing it, like the rest of you.
'You can't debate me because I'm not allowed to debate you; I'm not allowed to debate you because I can't make my own arguments. Regardless, I conclude that all you know is a lie. Don't try to debate me on that concept! P.S. read some Behe.'
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Your arrogance! Your unimaginable arrogance! The whole lot of you and your sinful, evil pride!
I have to admit that I laughed out loud at this one. "You, sir, are the very epitome of everything that is wrong with this country and its craven, slovenly people. Have you no honor? To you, sir, I say good day. Good day." Geez.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
If you really want to understand what I know, just read the books that I read. If you want to convince me of the errors of my ways, then come up with some innovative way of telling me the same old story about evolution and maybe I'll get tricked into believing it, like the rest of you.
Let's get an important point on the record first.
Who is responsible for the truthfulness and accuracy of your conclusions?
1) Your mommy 2) Evil lib'rals 3) strangers on a message board 4) You
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"'You can't debate me because I'm not allowed to debate you; I'm not allowed to debate you because I can't make my own arguments. Regardless, I conclude that all you know is a lie. Don't try to debate me on that concept! P.S. read some Behe.' "
Yeah, I know. That's why I responded so badly last night, honestly, because I read the exact same meaning from his statements.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Also, Tom:
As for the statement you quoted, think Charlton Heston yelling it in the whole "Planet of the Apes ending" style of horrified scream.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Yeah, I know. That's why I responded so badly last night, honestly, because I read the exact same meaning from his statements.
All things considered, it's still more sensical than what he presented.
While saying that the 'framework' or 'paradigm' of science is insufficient for judging anything he doesn't believe in, he simultaneously makes a primary critique of evolution or global warming by saying that they are scientifically bunk.
The fun part is where the bald double-standards dead end in open statements like about the "overwhelming evidence" against evolution/global warming, where he'll make statements about how speciation is nnonscientific and unproven, and he'll stick by it even when others point out that it's been recreated in laboratories.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
This is why I don't want to bother anymore. None of you are the least bit interested in what I have to say, and you never have been. You guys just have fun playing together in your little club, content in the knowledge that you know better than the rest of us. I'm sure it's a pleasant place.
You're all just so pathetic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just for the record, Resh, when did you want to bother? I don't recall a time when you ever responded to a request for more details with actual details instead of saying that you had one reason or another not to care enough to give them.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I've gotten into very long winded debates before, and I know you know that because you've been there. Regardless of the efficacy of my arguments, they always degrade into a complete lack of respect for anything I have to say, and for reasons that are usually resultant of twisting my words and "deliberate misinterpretation," as I've been so ironically accused of doing so many times. Case in point:
quote:You can't debate me because I'm not allowed to debate you; I'm not allowed to debate you because I can't make my own arguments. Regardless, I conclude that all you know is a lie. Don't try to debate me on that concept! P.S. read some Behe.
I've never before been compared to the "evil Amish," however.
I mean, are you kidding me? Why would I waste my time with such nerdy little douches like these guys anymore? Forget it. Just keep hanging on mercilessly to your completely cynical outlook on life and hopefully it doesn't turn into cancer in your bones.
By the way, I don't think you're pathetic, Tom. That wasn't directed at you. You've actually started to grow on me. You're like a grumpy but lovable old man.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I've gotten into very long winded debates before, and I know you know that because you've been there. Regardless of the efficacy of my arguments, they always degrade into a complete lack of respect for anything I have to say, and for reasons that are usually resultant of twisting my words and "deliberate misinterpretation," as I've been so ironically accused of doing so many times.
Maybe the irony goes both ways.
Case in point:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Case in point:
quote:You can't debate me because I'm not allowed to debate you; I'm not allowed to debate you because I can't make my own arguments. Regardless, I conclude that all you know is a lie. Don't try to debate me on that concept! P.S. read some Behe.
I've never before been compared to the "evil Amish," however.
I think you could get a little more out of SamPrimary's post if you actually thought about it.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I mean, are you kidding me? Why would I waste my time with such nerdy little douches like these guys anymore? Forget it. Just keep hanging on mercilessly to your completely cynical outlook on life and hopefully it doesn't turn into cancer in your bones.
I would say your outlook on life, where millions of people are "tricked" into believing a false theory, is also fairly cynical.
Also, it's extremely hypocritical of you to pretend to be the victim in this case. You are guilty of every single thing that you've accused others of doing.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
All I've ever seen is the short-winded debates, Resh (edit: except for this thread.) If I missed the long ones, I'm sorry you got burned out. But don't get whiny about it.
[ November 10, 2007, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"You're all just so pathetic. "
No, Resh.
The fact is, you think we're the ones who won't look, but we've already seen.
I've read Behe's arguements. I've read Dembski's arguements. I've seen their skill, and I understand how a person could believe them. They're very good at writing to a non-professional audience.
I know this because I've read them. I've read your links, I've read all the arguements you have.
But they aren't right. Yet yo uwant these theories to be right so badly that you'll actually attack the very nature of science, the nature of evidence, you've actually attacked cause and effect, because they disagree with you.
So, let me lay it on the line:
Based on what evidence do you believe the theories you believe?
Based on what? For what reason do you believe it?
Tell me why. I've tried to tell you why ,and I've given quite long, quite detailed posts on it, which you then dismissed without giving anything better.
You never answered my questions, you never actually gave any evidence against the loads I've sent towards you.
Your explanation for the unbelievably unlikely "coincidences" of morphology and genetics, the DNA similarities, the morphological similarities, the fossil record, is nonexistent. You just said you don't buy it.
You spinned a yarn about, six thousand years ago, a water shell or whatever floating above the earth, but you show no evidence for it. No hint in the geological record. No hint in climatology, or anything else. There's no data from which you bring this forth!
You spin a yarn, or at least many of you do, about different "kinds" of animals being on the ark, which then evolved.
Well: What's a kind? Define it specifically. You have failed, and the rest have failed to do that. Is a kind a species? A genus, family, class, phylum?
Is it something that isn't analogoous to the classifications of organisms scientists use? What's it's precise definition? In science, every term requires a specific definition. Vague statements about kind, a word that can be used in a thousand different ways, a myriad of meanings based on its context, doesn't explain anything. Give me a definition, and let's see how this concept works.
Further, the super evolution you speak of, necessary to go from the ark to the rest: When did it all occur? When did it stop occuring? By what mechanism did mutation rates speed up enough to create the vast number of species on the planet, and by what mechanism did they then slow down? And what evidence do you have for it?
Which animals lived before Noah's ark, and what's the point of demarcation?
Based upon what evidence do you suggest that the rate of decay in radioactive materials decreased over time? We've not noticed a decrease, but if it's decreased as much as is needed in only six thousand years, a century, being a still significant portion of six thousands years, should show us a decrease.
Why is there none? And, since there is none, what caused it to stop?
Why is it that, barring a few errors that always come from our imperfect human measurements, the vast number of overlapping measurements, from tree rings, oceanic drift, to the myriad different radioactive materials, all agree, with their varying levels of focus, from centuries, millenia, to millions to billions of years, respectively?
Each one is independant, each one is separate. Why do they all agree, and how did these things change so drastically in such a short time? Through what mechanism?
Further, we've seen things from other planets, know something about how they work. A vapor canopy over the earth would have had nothing to do with the rest of the planets, the moon and the rest of the universe. You need to remember that, for an explanation for the changes in radioactive materials and whatnot.
So, why are these different species, from one era to the next, obviously transitional? And further, do you even understand enough about evolution to know that the propaganda about half-made eyes and lungs without circulatory systems are nothing at all like what's actually shown to happen? The gradual, piece by piece changes that we can see today occuring being all that is necessary to make a human and an elephant and a whale from a common ancestor a long, long time ago?
Do you actually know how it works, or are you working with the outright lies, the falsehoods I see in the work of creationists all the time? For someone who actually reads the literature, who reads what the scientists are doing, what they're thinking, how they're going about it, what they mean by what they say, reading the creationist sites are like seeing an ad hominem. Most of the arguements are against straw men of evolution, that have nothing to do with the actual concept at all. They don't actually know enough about evolution, most of them, to know what they're talking about!
As for information theory, the suggestion that information cannot increase in DNA: How do you define information? What is information, specifically, and what mechanisms would increase it in the first place?
Science and math already have such a system in place, such a concept: in fact, it's the concept that's making your computer run right now. Bits. And if you know anything about the DNA code, you know that some mutations increase the amount of DNA in a genome, and other mutations can in fact cause those newly made genes to have an effect. Do yo uknow anything about how mutations occur, and how many of them create new areas of genes, copying old ones, replicating whole areas, switching genes around, creating whole new chromosomes in some cases, fusing them in others?
We've seen it with our own eyes.
Further: The whole irreducible complexity arguement: Can you show something that's irreducibly complex? No, you cannot. The flagellum isn't, that's been shown. Why? Because different species have different kinds of flagellum, of varying complexity, some less than others, many lack parts others have, and still do fine, and even if you take off the whole flagellum part entirely, and only leave the base, those bases of the flagellum happen to be the same mechanism used to insert DNA from one bacterium into another.
The same kind of thing is true for all the rest. I've seen it with my own two eyes.
To get back to the point:
Based upon what evidence do you believe what you believe? Based upon what actual, physical evidence do you discount evolution? What facts make evolution impossible? And what is the theory you possess to account for all the facts that currently exist, the fossil record, the DNA -
You know what? Let's go back to DNA for a second.
You know how, using DNA, they can trace your lineage? Compare it to prove your identity, but also to prove paternity and things like that?
Well, guess what? The same basic concepts apply to different species. The same, basic principles are used, comparing DNA between them.
If you discount the one as worthless, why do you trust the other, which is in fact the same very thing?
The sheer amount of coincidence which appears when you discount the examination of similarities and differences in DNA is astounding. Beyond anything concievable.
But, you have an answer, don't you? You have an answer to everything.
God did it through magic.
Yes, that's certainly more believable than millions and millions of pieces of evidence suggesting something naturalistic. Magic is, of course, more believable. Just ask the Amish, who think everything we do is simply evil magic. They'd agree with you, certainly.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Wah wah. Oh, sorry. Well, you missed out Morbo. This one is pretty trivial compared to some.
I think perhaps the irony does go both ways, Threads. But I disagree with your second statement. If I think about Megabyte's post (not Sam) anymore than I did, I'll only get less out of I than I did. What I mean is, I think I become stupider for having read it in the first place.
Ok, that's it. I will not post in this thread anymore. So if any of you want the last word, you're welcome to it.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I mean, are you kidding me? Why would I waste my time with such nerdy little douches like these guys anymore? Forget it. Just keep hanging on mercilessly to your completely cynical outlook on life and hopefully it doesn't turn into cancer in your bones."
Yes. Fools who don't like to think, who are threatened by thinking, always tend to throw the insult of nerd around. Since they either can't or won't think, they make thinking a stigma, and attach it to anyone who does so.
I know this from experience. Your contempt only shows how contemptible you yourself are, Resh.
I'm nerdy because I look at actual evidence. Because I think scientifically, or at leas try to.
I'm nerdy because I don't assume my answer beforehand, the way you True Believers do, and then come up with a different, more elegant explanation.
We aren't cynical, Resh. We look at the world and accept what it says, regardless of whether we want it to or not.
You, however, deny all of reality to fulfill what you wish to believe. There's no poison in being humble enough to accept how the world is, even if it disagrees with your most heartfelt beliefs.
There is poison in rejecting reality. Rejecting reality, simply saying in the face of evidence, as you have, "I just don't believe it! I won't believe it! You're all fools to believe this stuff!" is downright carcinogenic.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"What I mean is, I think I become stupider for having read it in the first place."
You actually think the concept of not ignoring things out of hand, of not closing your eyes and ears, as you do, is a source of stupidity?
You know nothing of what is stupid and what is not.
But stupid people tend to think intelligence is stupid.
You don't care about evidence. You don't care about the world.
If the Bible said that if you dropped a ball it would fall up instead of down, you'd believe it. And if I showed you that a ball fell down, if you saw it with your own eyes, you'd still deny it. You'd make yourself deny it, Mr. Winston Smith.
And yuo'd call us idiots for noticing it, too.
And in the old days, you would have killed us, as you'd do now if you had the power. As you religious people tend to do.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
But, let me give you one last chance: Prove yuo're not spewing total BS, Resh.
Answer the question I've given you in the past, and asked again today:
In other words, answer me this:
Based upon what evidence do you hold the belief you hold?
If you actually give something convincing, something that deals with the data we have, and answers all the obvious questions for how these things are not as they seem, I would actually believe you.
Want to take that chance? Want to actually put your money where your mouth is?
I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt when no one else would, Resh.
But so far, your only tactic has been attempting to dismiss evidence as a valid form of evidence.
Your only tactic has been to tell me I've been lied to, without showing me any truth in the least.
So:
Based upon what evidence do you believe what you believe, Resh?
Answer me! Just ifnally answer me, and I'll take back everything I've said! Just answer me, damn it!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
You said we were pathetic because we don't want to listen.
I am DEMANDING you to tell me, damn it!
Or are you just going to say, once again, "you don't really want to know, so I won't tell you, nya nya nya!" ?!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So, to be absolutely clear:
If you have any hold on the truth at all, if you hold any truth at all about these things in that skull of yours,
THEN TELL ME!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Forget it, 0Megabyte. It's Chinatown.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Ahh. Well, in that case:
FADE OUT
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nice to see some things haven't changed while I was away....
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
And in the old days, you would have killed us, as you'd do now if you had the power. As you religious people tend to do.
While I agree with your point, there are a lot of religious scientists who look at evidence and don't want to kill people who disagree.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"While I agree with your point, there are a lot of religious scientists who look at evidence and don't want to kill people who disagree. "
Mindset is the key. I won't go as far as, say, Neitzsche went, but we all know what the mindset of the True Believer leads to, where believing you Know the Truth leads to. Religious scientists usually at least tend towards being rational. Reasonable? No more so than anyone else. As a species we tend towards being unreasonable. But they probably won't go around killing anybody, yes. I may disagree with them on a few points of significance, but it's not quite... the same thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:This is why I don't want to bother anymore. None of you are the least bit interested in what I have to say, and you never have been. You guys just have fun playing together in your little club, content in the knowledge that you know better than the rest of us. I'm sure it's a pleasant place.
You're all just so pathetic.
Mm.
It looks like you've dropped your cool devil-may-care affect, and you've replaced it with a sort of wounded arrogance. A nerve has been touched. Rubbed raw, maybe. I'll take it any day over your normal methodology since it's a lot more curtailed. But one thing has remained consistent: here too, you ran away.
If nobody was interested in what you had to say, they wouldn't bother trying to get a response. They wouldn't keep bugging you to return to debates that you've abruptly abandoned in a pattern (and almost comical!) fashion, wherein you make a series of rhetorical and ostensibly 'factual' points, even the basest of which are contested by multiple people with links, citations, and even just proofs showing fallacy in your works.
All the while, you have a theme going. While blatantly ignoring or failing to comprehend the validity of counterpoint against you or the few cherrypicked 'Scientific' minds you've put your faith in, you end up sounding like a broken record. You repeat the same stagnant and demonstrably untrue statements about your conceptualization of 'theory falsification' even when people like Tristan are providing ironclad logical proofs as to how what you are saying makes no sense and is not applicable, rationally.
Multiple people (I have watched!) with a passionate, reasoned, and even polite intent to discuss the subject have engaged in open ended debate with you, only to be told off in a halfway insulting swagger. People tell you outright that your position can't come entirely from unqualified statements; that you need to source Behe and others and they will gladly address the arguments you bring up once they actually become arguments.
Sometimes when pressed, you give halfhearted responses which amount to little more than rehash of very simple fallacy, such as confusion between correlation and causation. But you get frustrated easily with this whole 'logical debate' thing, and you switch fairly quickly into your tired standby, which is to get terse, and whine about how everyone here must be disagreeing with you, not because you're failing to back up your position, but because Hatrack is some sort of ivory tower bastion of elitism that just can't handle your views because they come from your privileged understanding of God. People like Tom point out that your reasons and arguments are, at best, extraordinarily feeble and are in many cases demonstrably false. At the right times, you respond just by calling them trolls or jerks, even when they're not the ones being insulting at all.
And that's the most ironic part of all. You make the most elitist comment that has yet existed in Resh v. World as part of your defamation of others. You demand increasingly more 'impossible' burdens from others in terms of qualifying their statements in order to consider them valid, and then you brush off demands that you qualify your own statements. You prance about making fun of other people, calling them pathetic and trollish and 'willfully blind' and deluded, and then you whine and pout and consider yourself victimized by 'elitist oppression.' You could fly commercial jets through your double standards.
This is why it's usually in the best interest of many of your debate opponents to just keep you talking. The longer you stumble baldly and illogically around these subjects, the more you damage your position by trying to represent it. With an air of confidence, you act as a poster child for what's wrong with Intelligent Design. You 'don't want to bother anymore' because you never could. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)