Isn't it common knowledge that Scopes was on trial for breaking a law forbidding the teaching of evolution ?
And that he lost? Both the trial and the appeal?
He was found guilty at trial, but it was overturned on a technicality because the judge set the fine at $100 when statute required that the jury set any fine exceeding $50.
He was found guilty at trial, but it was overturned on a technicality because the judge set the fine at $100 when statute required that the jury set any fine exceeding $50.
My bad.
I was thinking of the constitutional arguments posed by defense counsel. They lost on all 3.
And how have you reasoned that the strongly held belief is indeed FALSE?
Well, for instance, if someone strongly believes that the Earth is flat, and we can physically observe that it is, in fact, not flat, we know that belief is false.
It's called "evidence." If it contradicts the belief, the belief is false.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
The once strongly held belief that the earth was the center of the solar system and the universe and everything revolved around it is one example.
Likewise believing that the earth is young or old does not make it so, rather it is old because that is the objective reality regardless of belief. Belief in a young earth is another example.
And how have you reasoned that the strongly held belief is indeed FALSE?
Not by reasoning but by testing it against objective reality. Reasoning alone won't tell you enough about the relation of belief to objective reality. Belief is not necessarily related to reality in any way, because if it was factual it would knowledge, not belief.
Let's talk about psychiatry and delusion:
A person that is clinically delusional has false beliefs strongly held in spite of contradictory evidence.
You could always try hunting around on the internet for evidence which either agrees or disagrees with the strongly held belief. The example I gave can be investigated quickly.
How many other people out there believe that DNA is made up of a chain of amino acids? What evidence is there for ths position? What evidence is there against this position? If you set out to answer those questions you'll rapidly become aware that the strongly held belief of our "DNA is made from amino acids" friend has no support whatsoever and in fact there are mountains of evidence which totally refute it.
The reason I didn't go and hunt all this evidence out when the original post was made was because, having worked in the field for a number of years I've already seen the evidence. The same goes for any other specialist in the field of molecular biology. Additionally, every working day my laboratory work depends on DNA being made up, not of amino acids, but nucleotides. If this is not correct then I wouldn't get either positive or negatve results - I would just have a bunch of experiments that didn't actually work, including the controls which are included to ensure that there isn't a problem with the methodology.
I really do urge you to have a look at the evidence and come to your own decision with regards to amino acids versus nucleotides. It is only by doing this that you will understand why jar and many others can say with confidence that certain strongly held beliefs can be utterly false.
Here are some links for you to have a look through
You can't answer the question of where you go to find out if you have misconceptions?
Then your dilemma would be........
Finding someone who does know about the topic, check that person with another authority, test what they say to check it's validity. Trusting just anyone is foolish, trusting a mathematician with a PhD from a major university to know about math is not nearly as foolish as trusting your local mechanic.
That gives you a tentative answer that you can test, based on knowledge you did not have before.
People grow up trusting their parents to know all and see all, and then some event happens, epiphany occurs, and they know that their parents don't know everything. The lesson is to not blindingly trust any authority, but to test concepts.
Great question. I'm stumped. I will give it some thought.
Perhaps you realize now that other people have already thought about this question, and some use a process that has been developed over the years for testing things against reality:
quote:1. Define the question 2. Gather information and resources (observe) 3. Form hypothesis 4. Perform experiment and collect data 5. Analyze data 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7. Publish results 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
quote:The essential elements[9][10][11] of a scientific method[12] are iterations,[13] recursions,[14] interleavings, and orderings of the following:
Characterizations (observations,[15] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses[16][17] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[18]
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[19] from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments[20] (tests of all of the above)
While the scientific process won't tell you when you are right, it does tell you when you have false conceptions.
You would have to voice a concept that someone else disagrees with and then they would have to point out your misconception.
Or you can ask a question about something you are not sure of but believe to be true. You can even ask yourself the question and then use the method above to test it and see if you can find the answer.
quote:Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if they do not.[8] Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed.
Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation. This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a belief about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.
Muybridge was able to show that the strongly held belief in the "flying horse" position was a misconception. He didn't know it was a misconception until he tested it.
Funny how, whenever a Creationist sees the evidence of how ridiculous some of his cohorts can be, the video or quote is always "taken out of context."
Funny how you label me a creationist. What made you jump to that conclusion?
Are you saying then that this video was a joke? The Creationists who made it are not actually saying that Evolution says we should find new life in peanut butter jars?
I honestly find it hilarious. Why do you evolutionists take it so personal?
Funny how you label me a creationist. What made you jump to that conclusion?
Honestly? It's an assumption because you fit some of the patterns I've grown used to. If you aren't, you're one hell of a devil's advocate, and you seem to love the Golden Mean fallacy of "respecting everyone's opinions," even if some opinions have been shown to be factually wrong.
I honestly find it hilarious. Why do you evolutionists take it so personal?
Because they're attacking science. These people affect public opinion, and most importantly, they want their garbage in schools where kids will be taught compeltely untrue versions of the Theory of Evolution. I hate to bring up South Park, but did you ever see the Richard Dawkins/Evolution episode? The way Ms. Garrison "taught" evolution is not that far off from what the Dover trial was all about. That's not education, that's outright lying, and it hurts the education and progress of all of humanity.
If a group were trying to force schools to teach that the Earth is flat as an "alternative theory" wouldn't you be upset? Hilarious, sure, but wouldn't it be worth arguing against?
Besides, this is a debate forum. We like arguing.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
but it's a really good thing for the economy, for proffits, for shareholders, for cheaper merchandise, having people to do the menial work that more educated would not stoop to do. Lots of positives for many. There are two sides to every coin.
rahvin writes:
So you approve of virtual slave labor, and view it as a "positive." Glad we disagree on that one.
Read it again. Someone suggested to me to be sure I understand the post before I reply. I'm just passing it on to you.
rahvin writes:
The topic has drifted just a bit from the original post, as you well know. You and I were talking about strawman arguments in the quote you replied to. Why are you so insistent on not addressing your actual replies? If you feel we've drifted too far from the original topic of the thread, that's fine, but you know full well what you were replying to when you quoted me.
You may not understand this, but I have been addressing the discrepancies (in the original post) from start to finish. I never lose sight of the premise. In this thread of 'patterns concerning human beings' I found some of the facts to be true but percieved from superiority and a condescending manner.
One misconception I am arguing is that one needs these skills to communicate or express a point of view. If I had said blatantly that this was wrong, I would have got all the arguments and evidence and got nowhere. This did happen anyway. The responses were rock solid. No way could I penetrate that miconception. So I approached it in a different way. A very simple way that all participants could understand. I decided to try to prove this point in black and white. This is what I did.
I sent a post completely mispelled and no punctuation, only one person responded. Later I sent exactly the same post but this time it was corrected. This time it sparked a flurry of debate which is absolutely wonderful and continuing still.
So you see, my friend, the percieved 'uneducated post' was ignored by the educated. It was written off by the more intelligent crowd. If Dameeva had not picked up on my point, it would have been dead and buried before it begun.
The evidence, in black and white is in this thread. It cannot be missed. It clearly shows the onus is on the educated to make the effort to listen and understand those who cannot improve their standards to meet yours. You are asking the impossible of them but it is so possible for you.
Getting back to the topic, the pattern that you're exhibiting here is another very common one with creationists, failure to perform even a cursory investigation.
Do you think creationists are also inept in their own chosen field?
™ Version 4.2
