|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Anyone else notice this pattern? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Yes, I do require more.
Do not confuse lack of agreement with lack of understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I don't care if you think I'm condecending.
I do not deny that I am coming right out and saying that Riverrat's command of the english language is inferior. It is so inferior that it gets in the way of clear communication. Thank you for restating the OP so succinctly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I have plenty of empathy. What does that have to do with this thread, and the fact that it appears, as it does, on a science-based debate board?
quote: Please read the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How often does either side actually make errors, though? If one side makes significantly fewer errors in reasoning and/or fact, then we wouldn't expect that side to "admit" to making many.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Er, no. We can come to know more, and understand more, through the process of learning.
quote: So...someone intelligent is somehow not able to comprehend certain information? Such as?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Not at all. Inquisitiveness, I like. I'll answer honest questions from someone who truly wants to learn all day long, and if I don't know the answer, I'm happy to say that I don't know. I'll do my best to politely correct someone's incorrect information, even if they don't ask a question but instead are just wrong. I think that most science-minded folks here are pretty much the same. (Molbiogirl and Crashfrog are sometimes too quick to turn sarcastic, I think) What usually happens here, though, is the non-science-types are often so very wrong, or are sloppy thinkers, or are simply uninterested in learning anything that threatens their preferred beliefs that they simply give any polite efforts the big F.U. in one form or another. Sometimes it takes the shape of an abusive temper tantrum, sometimes it is repetition of arguments instead of addressing rebuttals, sometimes it is playing dumb in order to avoid addressing rebuttals, sometimes it is being coy and playing word games to distract from the topic and bog down debate over terms or intent to avoid addressing rebuttals. In other words, they trot out all forms of dishonest debate tactics. Is the science-side immune? Of course not. Is it far more common, and obvious amongst non-critical thinkers? I think so. 'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy "What we need is not the will to believe but the will to find out." - Bertrand Russell "Man's greatest asset is the unsettled mind." - Isaac Asimov "We not only believe what we see, to some extent we see what we believe...The implications of our beliefs are frightening." - Richard Gregory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Um, no. We science-minded types disagree all the time, and correct each other all the time. Of the top of my head, I have had at least one argument each with Percy, jar, Crashfrog, Holmes, Purpledawn, Rrhain, Archer, arachnophilia, brennakimi, CK, Taz, Catholic Scientist, Asgara, Jon, pink sasquatch, truthlover, Ben, and Subbie, all of whom are evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Sure, why not. Honorable Mention awarded to: anglagard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It is well-known that Eleanor Roosevelt considered herself to be ugly. Her husband had an affair (and continued seeing the other woman for the rest of his life) with her own social secretary, which I'm sure rather damaged her feelings of self-worth as a woman.
source So, doubt no longer, Chester. The funny thing is, you could have done what I did before you posted a claim about Eleanor Roosevelt; looked at Eleanor Roosevelt's wiki page to make sure what you were claiming was supported by evidence. Yet, you didn't do what took me about three minutes to do, and instead just made it easy for me to point out your sloppy mistake. Why didn't you take the trouble to make sure what you were saying was true, or at least wasn't specifically and particularly contradicted? I think this habit of fact-checking ourselves and making sure our arguments are actually correct and based in good quality, reliable evidence is the single biggest differentiator between the science-minded and the non-critical thinker. I can't tell you the number of times I have not posted an argument or a claim because when I read up on it, I realized that I was wrong about it. So, tell me, in your opinion, is the person who habitually fact checks themselves a person who is unable to learn, or is the person who never fact checks themselves the one with the greater ability to learn?
quote: Nobody is suggesting that we all write in an "academic manner". I certainly don't write in anything close to an "academic manner". I'd be delighted with everyone writing as though they got a B in 10th grade English. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
How is this any sort of reply to my post?
You haven't addressed anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes. Creationists want religious non-science to be taught as though it were science, and there have been several attempts at enacting such educational policies which have ended up in front of the US Supreme Court because this violates the Constitution. You know, the US is falling behind many other countries in science education, and the vocal and influential religious people who embrace ignorance when it contradicts their religious beliefs have been a large part of the reason for this. They get on school boards. I mean, when our Republican Presidential candidates were asked to raise their hands when asked if they accepted the Theory of Evolution, several of them didn't. That's the danger, Heinrik. That someone can get so far along the path to becoming the next President of the United States of America and yet can be so anti-science and ignorant. Most of the country didn't bat an eye. Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, no, that's not true. Science can certainly provide a strong evidence-based case against the Creationist's claims regarding the natural world. Furthermore, this case is built using methods which anyone, regardless of belief, can use. Scientific methodology works, in other words, regardless of if you believe it works or not. Just because Creationists refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist. Just because Creationists refuse to admit their errors doesn't mean they haven't been demonstrated to be in error. So, I disagree that this debate isn't about who is right and who is wrong. It is about exactly that. It is also about the correction of errors and intellectual honesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What if Creationism was 100% false? Guess what? It is 100% false.
quote: Of course, the claims of science and Biology are supported by a great deal of evidence from nature. Creationism's claims are not. Period. The only reason people believe Creationist claims is through religious convicion combined with ignorance of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That is not true at all. If there was real, reliable scientific, physical proof of god, jesus, etc., of course I would accept the evidence, just like I accept any scientific explanation. Of course, that means that the acceptance would be subject to revision if new evidence comes to light...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No.
quote: I've asked for explanations, many times. What I've usually gotten in reply is contentless, sarcastic one-liners. What rat does quite often, I think, is this: He will write something in an unprecise manner which expresses something he didn't mean to say, and then gets pissed off at everybody else for responding to what he wrote instead of what he didn't write but really meant to say. Or, he really did mean to say exactly what he wrote, and then people completely demolish and shred his post to pieces, and then he comes back and tries to save face by saying something like, "That's not what I meant/said at all, and I can't believe all you people hate me for believing in God". This then requires him to make more word salad to try to twist out of what he said before. Lastly, and perhaps the most bemusing behavior of all is when he appears to have written a meaning into a post that he later says he didn't intend, his respondants call him on it, yet he digs in his heels and begins defending the view he says he never meant to express! That's my take, anyway, after a few years of debate with him. Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024