|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Restrictions in the Science Forums. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
The singularity is not a premise. (Reminder: singularity is actually a mathematical term, and refers in this context to the conditions in which the maths of classical physics breaks down with infinite density.) It is a conclusion. It is not assumed. It is developed as a consequence of the empirical evidence. It was not welcomed for philosophical reasons (except by Christians like the great physicist Georges LeMaitre who saw it as a creation moment). It succeeded because of the evidence. That you consider all that supports BB as imperical, that means there is iyo, no other valid argument. There should be posted at the registration to EvC to that effect and that all other viewpoints need not apply to science forums for if you debate other viewpoints your arguments will be in violation and you will be suspended or banned. For example, it was my arguments for unbounded space that began my problems, though the arguments I presented were not soundly refuted. I did the great debate on the scientific thermodynamic laws relative to my ID hypothesis. None refuted that, either in that debate nor the subsequent 300+ message GD thread that followed. Admin now calously pshaws that fully legitimate debate run solidly by GD rules as a non event because their/your man clearly lost that debate. I say until those arguments of mine are refuted, those supportive arguments for my ID premise are equally as imperical as yours for BB. You hold us to a higher standard so far as what is considered imperical by you and grant yourselves loads of leeway, imo. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12993 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I hope my recent burst of activity a week ago hasn't raised expectations. It may take me a while to make further changes to the forums, and I think more moderators need to chime in anyway, but rest assured I haven't forgotten this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Buz's out of context phrase which Sylas uses: We do it the same as you do BB
Sylas's missusage of the that of context phrase: This is wrong. Buz has never grasped the model, or the evidence, or the reasons why it is so dominant for scientists. His inability to understand what makes an argument empirical is why he has been restricted, and this inability is also the heart of his perception of injustice. Buz's full context from which the phrase was taken: We do it the same as you do BB. We start with God/ID/Bible and produce evidence that lends credence to that, some of which could, in fact, be interpreted in favor of BB, or of ID Biblical creationism, depending on your perspective. We've done this but you cry foul because our premise is not BB (in your view, the only bonafide science). We both know there was once a flood. We cite the Biblical reference and you cite ice age melt, et al. Both premises have some unanswered questions, but it only those of ours that count as significant, so far as debating science goes in your eyes. Buz requests that Sylas address the full context from which the phrase was taken.
The rules are truly the same for both sides. Work with the empirical evidence, and you can do it in the science forums. LOL! You get banned or restricted.
The restriction is to an individual, not to a group and not to a viewpoint. The restricted individual is Buzsaw. There are pros and cons to this, I grant. Most creationists actually do understand the significance and form of empirical argument, and make an attempt to use it. That debate is the whole reason for the science forums. If Buzsaw wants to make another attempt at an argument which he thinks ought to be accepted under the rules applied for a scientific debate, I would suggest that he start a thread in Forum Is It Science?. Although that is technically a science forum, I have restored Buzsaw's permissions to that forum, since it seems fair enough to engage this meta-debate in that forum. It would still require a topic proposal. Thanks Sylas. It might not be right away, but I'll be thinking about something suitable for a thread topic. Edited typographical error This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-22-2005 09:31 PM The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
That you consider all that supports BB as imperical, that means there is iyo, no other valid argument. There should be posted at the registration to EvC to that effect and that all other viewpoints need not apply to science forums for if you debate other viewpoints your arguments will be in violation and you will be suspended or banned. The word is "empirical". No matter how often this is explained, Buzsaw just does not listen. This is nothing but an obdurate refusal to pay attention. It is not about the viewpoint. It is about what kinds of argument you use, not the conclusion. Arguments are scientific when they are based on the empirical. These are the arguments which are debated in science forums, for any viewpoint. No claim has been made that only empirical arguments are valid. The point is simply that only empirical arguments are scientific, and that the science forums are set aside for those who wish to pursue empirical arguments. ANY viewpoint is allowed. Infinite universe, finite universe, designed universe, random universe, static universe, expanding universe, steady state universe, spinning universe, universe on a pogo stick, whatever you like. Just deal with how your viewpoint, or the viewpoints you wish the criticize, engage the empirical. If you want to tackle how a viewpoint is consistent with personal intuitions, or revelation, or philosophical principles, or ethics, or theological doctrines, or ease of comprehension, or styles of pedagogy, or other such matters, then try another forum and leave the science forums for those who know what empirical means and are able to discuss the many and varied viewpoints in that light. Until Buzsaw grasps this simple distinction between viewpoints and empirical arguments, and until he has the elementary common sense and decency to repeat accurately what he has been told time and time and time again, I am totally opposed to his distracting science forums with this foolishness. The science forums remain fully open to any viewpoint, and to any debater who engages the empirical arguments for or against their viewpoint. Sheesh! -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Sylas, with all due respect, you again took my comment which you addressed out of the context in which it was posted so as to descredit me. Had you addressed the comment relative to the context it was taken from, your maligning comments about me would not hold. This seems to be your subtile modus operendi with me to discredit my arguments rather than to address the specific critical points of my posts.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
No, Sylas did not quote you out of context.
And I have to ask, why does disagreeing with your uninformed and inaccurate opinion indicate that the forum is closed to other viewpoints ? The Big Bang is a conclusion, not a premise. That is a fact, no matter how much you disagree with it. It is founded in a sound knowledge of theory and supported by the empirical evidence. And that is why it is so widely accepted by the scientists working in the field. It was originally proposed be LeMaitre, a Jesuit priest. Georges-Henri Lemaitre: The Astronomer-Priest This description of Einstein's initial reaction
As for Einstein, he found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view
(emphasis mine)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Buz, our discussion of this issue is over; and this is my last comment to you on the matter.
My best efforts have been described as unjust and out of context and given with the aim to discredit. None of these is true, and a meta-debate about such things is just piling the absurd upon the absurd. I've tried to explain the expectations in the science forums to the best of my ability, with all sincerity, and with a considerable investment of time. Further attempts will only serve to alienate and anger. It no longer serves any useful purpose, and it is destructive of good relations. So I withdraw. The thread can remain open to general discussion of what is expected in the science forums; though I think that the matter is by now pretty clear to nearly everyone. The present policy is that any viewpoint is welcome, and that there is no presumption of any special standing for one viewpoint over another. The requirement is simply that the debate focuses on scientific empirical arguments. This applies across the board, for all viewpoints and for all debaters. Thank you, and goodnight. Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As for Einstein, he found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view Neato. I think it's reminiscent of the Biblical dogma of creation too. Don't understand why IDers fight it, or why they fight the idea of junk DNA either. Junk DNA may not end up supporting a Biblical viewpoint but at first thought it looks like it could. But I guess I'm off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
No, Sylas did not quote you out of context. He did so quote me out of context, the important contexual reason for the statement which was: For example, .................. The next paragraph was the supportive data showing that I used unrefuted scientific arguments for my ID premise, supportive to the statement he used to malign my conduct. But that's ok. He's running from it and I'm done talking about it. Time to move on.
The Big Bang is a conclusion, not a premise. That is a fact, no matter how much you disagree with it. The statement in question was about my arguments for my position and how I was using legitimate debate conduct in debate. He failed to acknowledge this in his response, ignoring it completely. I contended that my unrefuted arguments were as empirical as BB arguments until they were refuted. Forget it! Enough has been said and people are getting irritated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I know you provided what you THINK are examples. However omitting them is NOT quoting you out of context. It does NOT affect the meaning of the paragraph quoted.
Moreover that paragraph was not about your arguments. Here's the first sentence again:
That you consider all that supports BB as imperical, that means there is iyo, no other valid argument.
Clearly you are claiming that a belief that the Big Bang is supported by empiricial evidence excludes other viewpoints. However it is a fact that the Big Bang is supported by physical evidence and it is false to claim that accepting that fact automatically excludes other viewpoints. This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-24-2005 04:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3940 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
My impression of the system was that a member could be blocked from posting to one or more forums, but "read only" permission for the topics of those forums remained.
Can you still read the forum topics in the forums that you are restricted from posting to? The Phantom (A)Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Thanks PaulK... there is a whole forum given over to the discussion of what is or isn't science. It is Is It Science?. I pointed this out previously. If people would like to debate the standing of different arguments as scientific or not, then that would be the place.
Cheers -- Sylas This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-24-2005 08:12 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Clearly you are claiming that a belief that the Big Bang is supported by empiricial evidence excludes other viewpoints. However it is a fact that the Big Bang is supported by physical evidence and it is false to claim that accepting that fact automatically excludes other viewpoints. In effect it has excluded the other viewpoints I was debating, since, regardless of my valid arguments, BB supportive arguments to BB have been deemed empirical, thus excluding ID arguments such as those in my second paragraph as credible, regardless as to whether mine have been refuted or not by my counterparts. Thus I am accused of repetitively and dogedly contending for my unrefuted arguments in debate. Can we drop this now, or am I still not clear in what I'm trying to convey? Sylas doesn't want to address it further and neither do I. Edited for spelling This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-24-2005 10:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I think that your continued argument in this thread is demonstrating exactly why you are not and should not be allowed to post in the science forums.
Rather than make a coherent argument taking the full facts into account you try to make excuses - which may seme plausilbe to oyu but all too often are completley irrational. e.g.
quote: How can saying that empirical evidence is empirical evidence have the effect you claim ? So far as I can see you are just inventing irrational excuses rather than admit to the truth - a style of argument also seen in the thermodynamics discussion, and one that does not belong in a science forum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024