Difference between religion and science fora

I don't believe that faith is just a matter of indefensible explicable irrationality as Jar puts it but I don't have a problem with defining the faith forums in those terms.What I do have a problem with is what NosyNed suggests, his requirement that science may not be discussed in any terms whatever outside the science fora. Since he has restricted me from the science fora for some time already (for a violation of the science standards on a non-science forum just as he did last night), that means I am simply not allowed to express an opinion about scientific questions at all ever. If that is the rule, it prohibits altogether speculations about science that don't meet rigorous scientific criteria no matter where they are expressed -- which is what Chiroptera agrees should be the case. It's as good as putting a muzzle on some creationists, although it had been my impression that I was free to make nonscience comments outside the science fora.The reason there is now a Theological Creationism forum in the religion section, was so that creationists could do exactly that, give creationist speculations including science comments, without threat of suspension, as I argued at the time, and even without a requirement to deal with scientific challenges in scientific terms. The idea was that scientific challenges would not be prohibited there, but that answers would not require the meeting of scientific criteria as the science forums do, could even be answered with a flat statement of belief, as Jar puts it, or no answer at all, with impunity.If such comments are completely restricted to that one forum alone, maybe that would be an acceptable compromise to those who don't want to allow them at all?This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 04:52 AM

A number of mods/admins are creationists of one sort or another. I don't think there's a YEC among them, but Phatboy and Jar consider themselves creationists and I believe there are others who aren't around as often. No hiccup, Randman, business as usual. Many creationists have protested, including me, but I've decided to back off and accept the status quo for the most part. Some accommodations have been made. The Theological Creationism forum was put up as an attempt to permit creationists to argue specifically scientific issues with more freedom than is permitted in the science fora.I had been under the impression that the religion/social issues section did not have strict science standards already, though the topics were not to be scientific as such there anyway, yet twice now I've been surprised by a sudden suspension for not meeting science standards in these non-science fora, as AdminNosy apparently wants science standards applied wherever science comes up anywhere on the board. I'm grateful to AdminAsgara for recognizing the problem and rescinding this recent suspension.It IS a double standard but I'm not sure there's much that can be done about it. I hope you will stick around. Maybe you would be a good mod. You could propose yourself for the job. I wouldn't want the job as I get too involved in the discussion and I'm afraid my judgments might be so different from the other admins that I couldn't make them stick anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 07:24 AM

I don't agree that the science standards here are truly rigorous or even rational, as a matter of fact, or at least they aren't consistently so. I agree with Randman that the criteria are all over the place and very inconsistently applied. I'm merely going along with the prevailing view. When in Rome.

I'm using ordinary everyday language which is quite understandable and a lot clearer. In any case when I said I go along with the prevailing view I meant I put up with the bannings and whatever without protesting any more, not that I try to meet the standards.

You aren't that dumb. You can figure out what I'm saying if you are willing to, could ask for clarification if you don't. Presumably you also speak ordinary everyday English. I object to the term "evolution" to describe what is merely the same thing as the ages-old breeding or artificial selection of varieties of a species, or breeds, or the natural selection version of the same thing. It never used to be used in the sense it is now used to describe this, and to use it that way is really question-begging as it obscures the very terms of the dispute creationists have with evolution. Nevertheless I do frequently use the term in its currently accepted sense, but only thickly hedged with qualifiers as I consider it a tendentious and confusing misnomer.

Are nonscientists welcome here or not? Do you have the good will to help us with terminological problems or not? Or is this simply a matter of paying one's dues for the *right* to have an opinion here? I have no desire to go onto the science fora because of the attitudes to creationists, but I do have an interest in discussing scientific questions from a nonscientist/layman's point of view.It isn't simply a refusal on my part to use the terminology, it's partly a concern to say exactly what I mean and not get caught up in the tendentiousness of technical language that obscure or compromise what I'm trying to say, and it's also that this requirement that a nonscientist learn the terms, such as by reading a geology text, doesn't do it. I've read quite a bit of basic geology online. It doesn't help very much in dealing with what I'm actually trying to say, though where it does I make use of it. In other words, I already know what I'm trying to say and while it would be good to put it in the most correct terms, they don't come readily to hand, and I would think for my very basic purposes that basic English should suffice. I've also read basic genetics, how DNA works, both online and in an introductory level book I have.I grasp what I grasp. I understand enough to know what I'm trying to say. I have basically two main ideas -- about how natural limits to genetic variation are built into the genome for each species, and how the geologlical strata defy explanation in terms of long accumulation. If I have the terminology wrong in some *crucial* (as opposed to nitpicking insignificant or irrelevant) way, it would be kind of you to help me translate what I'm trying to say into the proper language, which I have to believe you are capable of doing.However, I don't think terminology is the problem. I think it's very clear what I'm saying, and you simply have all the usual evolutionist objections to it.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 09:24 AM

What is the *correct* term that is used instead of "proof*, then, when there is far more than a mere speculative plausibility in support of a given scientific finding? People keep telling me all there IS is plausibility, but as a matter of fact the sense in which the geo time table or the ToE are mere plausibilities is far more tenuous than the sense in which laboratory science produces plausibilities, so to insist on the term merely obscures the point I'm trying to make, which point concerns the utter untestability and unfalsifiability of the ToE etc while yet affirming that much genuine falsifiable testable science goes on in lab and field every day. Come on. Is this a terminological problem REALLY?

I asked a reasonable question and if you are going to treat me this way the conversation is over. I'm not jumping through hoops for you.I thought such personal remarks were out of line here. Depends on who says them to whom, doesn't it?This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 10:53 AM

There are degrees of tentativity, and I want terminology for the differences in order to express my opinions. There are many many many established facts in the history of science, although they are officially held to have a degree of tentativity that would admit of possible future correction. Quite an academic distinction and insisting on it is pedantic at least. Not to have terminology that discriminates between degrees of tentativity is, well, rather primitive I would say.

So let me understand. The word "proof" no longer exists in the English language. Is that correct?Because there is absolutely nothing that can be proven for absolutely sure? So no matter if something is in fact KNOWN to be true to an astronomic degree of probability, it still cannot be said to be "proven?" Is that correct? So now, every time I'm tempted to use the term "prove" or its variations, I have to go, "oh um, sorry I only mean proven beyond a reasonable of doubt or up to 999999999999% of perfection?This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 12:09 PM

I see, and if I want to challenge that scheme of things, to say that evolution is the MOST tentative rather than the closest to being actually proven, this is simply not allowed?Which is what I thought. This isn't about terminology, it's about the very claims that are being challenged.But thanks for allowing me the term "proof" in at least some cases. Schrafinator denied me the right to use it EVER EVER EVER EVER. And apparently so does C Knight.

Oh good. That's what I thought. That's a relief.

Truthfully I didn't think about it, I merely use it in a common-sense rather than set-in-concrete mathematical sense. But I'm smart enough to know that nothing in science is ABOLUTELY proved, and that especially as it has developed over the last century, so much happened scientifically that called previous formulations into question -- Newton for instance -- that although the old theories continue to be used because they are practical, and correct within their practical spheres, they must be regarded as only relatively correct because of later science. So I think you were imputing to me some concrete definition of the term I don't in fact share.

None of which meanings of the term I have violated, to judge from a cursory reading.

IN fact Jar goes on to state that Evolution is as good as proven.