Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 211 of 358 (646522)
01-05-2012 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by herebedragons
01-04-2012 9:07 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
The identity and nature of this designer is not revealed. However, my observation is that creationists have latched onto this idea and see it as a way to bring credibility to their cause. So it has become (or at least perceived as) creationism in disguise. That makes it difficult for me personally to support the movement.
That which you have described in the form of order and law is either there or it is not. It clearly is, therefore someones ambitions have nothing to do with what is real or not real
If there is order and law, it validates itself without my motives or ambitions
Secondly, I see their work resulting in little more than words. The main tenet of ID, irreducible complexity, has been completely debunked. Part of the problem is that opponents need only demonstrate that a process could arise in a step-wise process not that it actually did evolve in that way to invalidate that a system is irreducibly complex. Step-wise processes have been proposed for the blood clotting pathway, flagellum, the eye, and so on ... So the main tenet of ID falls. What else is there?
Dont confuse reality, with "little more than words". its there I didnt make it up with verboseness
But I would have to agree with the others that it has not lived up to the criteria to be considered legitimate science.
Not a single person has offered one valid argument to demonstrate thier process, as being different than anyohter investigation. The SM community, just keeps saying its better and different, cant youjust see it
Another way they could do it, is to demonstrate a type of physical evidence different and better, than that produced by the ID process. Of course they cant
Tell me what it is
You were asked about what would you teach during the ID half of the science hour. That may be a good place to start. How could you teach ID in the classroom and meet the requirements of scientific education?
How do you think I did?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 01-04-2012 9:07 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by herebedragons, posted 01-05-2012 9:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 212 of 358 (646544)
01-05-2012 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by foreveryoung
01-04-2012 7:32 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
The problem is that while the bible may be reality we cannot be sure that it is not simple made up by bronze age people with very little grasp on how reality works.
Today we use science to remove the bias that people have when they reach conclusions and it is a very effective method, indeed.
When the bible tells us one thing and yet science says it is very unlikely we have to play the percentages and go with what is most likely true, rather than what could (at an outside stretch) be true.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 7:32 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 213 of 358 (646545)
01-05-2012 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot
01-05-2012 12:34 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Study the Process of, the To.L.O&P, (Law, Order and Purpose) as exhibited in the natural world. An analysis of detailed plant, animal and nearly every other form of life should reveal an intricate form of order, consistency and harmony, to produce desired, practical and useful purposes, to maintain, conduct and sustain life.
Still waiting for you to show us how this means ID is true. Hell, I'd be interested to see you quantify order, purpose and harmony.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 12:34 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 8:29 AM Larni has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 214 of 358 (646552)
01-05-2012 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Larni
01-05-2012 5:54 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Still waiting for you to show us how this means ID is true. Hell, I'd be interested to see you quantify order, purpose and harmony.
Not a problem. I was simply responding to Drosp's request to put into words what we IDs need to teach in the classroom. Ill be happy to discuss Conclusions when he is ready
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Larni, posted 01-05-2012 5:54 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-05-2012 9:06 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 215 of 358 (646555)
01-05-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Dawn Bertot
01-05-2012 8:29 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Hey DB,
This message was for you - Message 193

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 8:29 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-06-2012 9:02 AM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 216 of 358 (646556)
01-05-2012 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dawn Bertot
01-05-2012 1:01 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
cant youjust see it
No. I guess not.
The SM starts with a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with experimental or acquired data. The hypothesis is then either supported or rejected.
I would suggest that the vast majority of initial hypothesis are either wrong or need to be refined after experiments are performed. If a researcher does have consistently valid hypothesis it is probably because he/she is building upon earlier work. But no one publishes negative results, they publish when they make a discovery, a break through. And in their published work they don't discuss all the failures they had to get to the point they are at. That is what falsifiable is all about. When you propose a hypothesis, you must be willing to throw it out if it is wrong.
A simple example from my own experience. I am studying a shrub/tree, Glossy Buckthorn, that is an aggressive invader of Midwest wetlands. I observed several fairly large stands that had died unexplainably. I did some research and found that Glossy Buckthorn was susceptible to attack by a particular nematode. This nematode caused symptoms consistent with what I was observing. I was excited. This could be a potential biological weapon against this invader. So my hypothesis was that nematodes have invaded this stand of Buckthorn. I did some experiments and found no evidence what-so-ever of parasitic nematodes. Much to my disappointment, I had to abandon that hypothesis. However, not all is lost. I will propose a new hypothesis and test that until I reach a valid conclusion.
So you see, that's the rub. ID starts with a hypothesis that can't be wrong. If you started with the hypothesis that a particular thing is designed, would you be willing to abandon that hypothesis when the evidence did not support it? Are you willing to say that the flagellum, the blood clotting pathway ... etc. are not designed? No. that hypothesis can not be abandoned. That is why it is not scientific.
That which you have described in the form of order and law is either there or it is not. It clearly is, therefore someones ambitions have nothing to do with what is real or not real
Dont confuse reality, with "little more than words"
I do believe in reality. I do not limit my understanding of reality to only what can be observed in the natural world. I would not argue against an intelligent designer, or a creator or God. But I don't see how the discussion of those topics falls under the category of science. Could we discuss morality in a scientific context? Could we scientifically determine which religion is correct? Could we scientifically determine whether vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate? These discussions are for philosophy and theology (and personal opinions).
I agree that the order and laws of the universe do point to a designer. But how do you make a scientific hypothesis to test that? If you start with a hypothesis that is assumed to be true, why bother testing it? You would state that the law and order indicates that there must be a designer. End. It can't be tested, can't be invalidated, can't be science. That doesn't mean it can't be true. But can't be science.
Not a single person has offered one valid argument to demonstrate thier process, as being different than anyohter investigation.
I tried
HBD
ABE: I just saw you did outline a process for teaching ID in the classroom in the previous message, but I will have to take a closer look at it later.
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 1:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(7)
Message 217 of 358 (646639)
01-05-2012 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot
01-05-2012 12:34 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
So your goal here is to compare your Process with my Conclusion, not compare your Process with my Process.
So right off the bat we have etablished a prejudice in the kids minds that shouldnt eixst.
So the first 15 minutes should be spent explaining to the class the difference between a process and a conclusion. That if we want to be exact. You do want to be exact as a science teacher, correct Droso?
Might have known I wouldn't have got a straight answer from you - just your usual word salad - so I'm going to back up and do a 'Janet and John' idiot's guide to classroom teaching (yes, I used to be a school science teacher in the mid 1980s).
Teacher: Ok pupils - today in our science class we are going to look at two competing hypotheses for how life on Earth has got to where it is.
Note that I’ve demoted the theory of evolution here - not the ToE now but the HoE - hypothesis of evolution along with HoID - hypothesis of intelligent design. (because students new to a hypothesis must see it as a hypothesis and not a conclusion - I'm sure you knew this is what is done in science classes).
The next thing is to identify the two hypotheses and point out they are mutually incompatible - which they are. Either life has developed under blind non-intelligent means or it is the result of intelligent guidance. There is no third alternative and the two hypotheses are mutually exclusive.
The teacher would then stimulate the pupils by asking them what sort of things you could expect as predictions by the two hypotheses concerning the organisation of life on the planet. The two hypotheses make very different predications.
For example, blind evolution predicts that no new features should be able to 'jump' lines. If it did that would be strong evidence against the HoE. On the other hand there is no reason that this should be so with the HoID. In fact the reverse should be true. If an intelligent designer discovers a new feature of worth, there should be no good reason to limit it to a single line (humans are defined as intelligent designers and we certainly don't do that)
Another prediction of the HoE would be that species would be graded in geological strata according to when blind evolution forms them. If a species came about by evolution in say the Carboniferous era then it could not be found in the earlier Devonian period for example. To find otherwise would blow the hypothesis out of the water.
The teacher would then explain that the process of validifying the hypotheses must (because this is a science class remember) be based purely on real world evidence and not the random thoughts of what could be possible. The pupils are taught in science that only real world evidence has any bearing on turning a hypothesis to the more powerful theory.
They would be stimulated for suggestions about what real world evidence can validify the two competing hypotheses - remembering we are trying to work out how the life on earth has progressed from the past to the present.
If they are an imaginative lot they will realise that evidence that gives a handle on life processes on this planet will be key. They could come up with (for example)
The fossil record
DNA analysis in living species
Species population distribution
Then the pupils would go on to study these and would be encouraged to formulate their response to the two hypotheses on offer - giving reasons for their findings.
By the way - this method of teaching science (i.e. by personal discovery rather than by rote memorisation of facts given by teachers) is known in the UK as the Nuffield Foundation method of science teaching. It places emphasis on the process of learning the scientific method rather than rote memorisation that many of the examining boards were doing prior to the early 1970s.
My university dissertation was an investigation in 1982 into biological science teaching and examination across the 'O' levels offered by the major examination boards and the Nuffield Foundation - to see if Nuffield was living up to its promise that at least 50% of the marks in exams would be gained by deductive scientific reasoning rather than rote memory (it indeed was - and the other boards without exception were 90% plus rote memory type questions). Interesting stuff! I checked 5 years worth and by the end the other exam boards were beginning to emulate Nuffield - but still well behind them. My dissertation is in the Department of Education in the University of Hull if you are interested enough to check it out. You would probably remark that this is a ‘snooze fest’ which seems to be your stock answer for anything that is scientifically involved or technical — which I guess goes a long way to explain why you have no working knowledge of what constitutes science in the first place.
Discussion and evaluation of the findings and a final conclusion will lead to one hypothesis being tentatively accepted based on the evidence discussed and the other rejected - because they are mutually exclusive remember.
I'll leave it to you to work out which would 'fail'.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 12:34 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-06-2012 9:14 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 218 of 358 (646698)
01-06-2012 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Butterflytyrant
01-05-2012 9:06 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Hey DB,
This message was for you - Message 193
Yes I know. I will get to it as quickly as I can
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-05-2012 9:06 AM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 219 of 358 (646700)
01-06-2012 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Drosophilla
01-05-2012 7:34 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
You would probably remark that this is a ‘snooze fest’ which seems to be your stock answer for anything that is scientifically involved or technical
Not really, I was just adding a little commedy to an otherwise tense situation . I have no doubt you are a very eductaed man, with very fine credentials. I am sure you are a fine educator. Yet, that has little or nothing to do with whether you have addressed the issue at hand
Might have known I wouldn't have got a straight answer from you
Not only did you get a straight answer, you got several questions, and a process which you ignored and reduced to word salad. Then you again avoided answering and replaced them with a inadvertant transposition of two distinct ideas. Dros, forget for a moment this compulsion you have to set in opposition the ToE with ID. Focus intially and primarily on IDs process. Do this by simply examining it. You can review a process without comparing it to the ToE, correct
Use your scientificy methodology, to point to the point in the process I presented to you and say, Ah there it is, there is the point in his process that is not scientificy enough. Or there is something he left out
Note that I’ve demoted the theory of evolution here - not the ToE now but the HoE - hypothesis of evolution along with HoID - hypothesis of intelligent design. (because students new to a hypothesis must see it as a hypothesis and not a conclusion - I'm sure you knew this is what is done in science classes).
The next thing is to identify the two hypotheses and point out they are mutually incompatible - which they are. Either life has developed under blind non-intelligent means or it is the result of intelligent guidance. There is no third alternative and the two hypotheses are mutually exclusive.
While I am sure you an excellent and experienced educator, you seem to be at best an adequate, if not less than adequate polemist. Not only have you avoided related questions, you have now contradicted yourself in two paragraphs
The two hypos are the same investigation into the same material with the same results. Or at best, a collection of results, all defined and demonstrated by basically the same approach. Remember what we learned Droso, terms dont define reality. The reality is that it is just an investigation
Point to the thing in that which I presented you and say, not "Word Salad", but there is the thing according to the SM, that makes his process not an investigation
Once again and for your benifit, the two processes are not conclusions and they cannot be mutually exclusive, unless you can show how the specifics of the process/s yield something differnt, than Natural Selection and Order
Here is one of the points you have continued to avoid. Even if evo were true, it would not affect whether something was designed to operate in that manner. Your viewing creationism as a religous concept, it is not. When we get to that point you can try and show why if the ToE were true,it would invalidate that it was designed to operate in that fashion
Either life has developed under blind non-intelligent means or it is the result of intelligent guidance. There is no third alternative and the two hypotheses are mutually exclusive.
This does not affect whether IDs process is science, nor does it demonstrate that IDs conclusion is false, because you can identify certain aspects of change in the ToE
What specifically in IDs process, that I set out, does not qualify as either science or an investigation?
While you are correct that there is no third alternative, you need to demonstrate Presently, that IDs process and its tenative conclusions are mutually exclusive to and data found in the so-called SM, not its conclusion
You have been fighting an imaginary version of creationism and ID for so long you dont know how to distinguish between what is real and what is not
If an intelligent designer discovers a new feature of worth, there should be no good reason to limit it to a single line (humans are defined as intelligent designers and we certainly don't do that)
I will now entertain this with full knowledge that you have not in the least touch any of the propositions that I had set out. What is science? why the ID process does not qualify as science?, etc, etc, etc. You have not addressed direct questions either. Do you agree that even if the ToE were true, it would not mean that it was not designed or created to exist and thrive in the enviornment you are witnessing. Or atleast from a logical format show why that does not follow, concerning the two propositions
Now to your contention
Assuming that a designer exists, and that is what your argument implies, it would also make no sense, or at best it would not make sense to us, to create a physical enviornment, when a spiritual one was alraedy in existence and was much superior to that of a physical one.
Again trying to show how a designed system should work according to your principles, has nothing to do with whether IDs process qualifies as an investigation, whether it is science or not, or whether if the ToE were true, that it was not created, then left alone to proceed in that manner.
The teacher would then explain that the process of validifying the hypotheses must (because this is a science class remember) be based purely on real world evidence and not the random thoughts of what could be possible. The pupils are taught in science that only real world evidence has any bearing on turning a hypothesis to the more powerful theory.
Since it follows that the Id process of investigation violates none of the above principles, you would agree that ID qualifies as science, since its methodology identifies, definate principles of Law, order and purpose, correct?
That is the point at hand, for you to demonstrate why the process is not valid, not to compare two competing theories
My university dissertation was an investigation in 1982 into biological science teaching and examination across the 'O' levels offered by the major examination boards and the Nuffield Foundation - to see if Nuffield was living up to its promise that at least 50% of the marks in exams would be gained by deductive scientific reasoning rather than rote memory (it indeed was - and the other boards without exception were 90% plus rote memory type questions).
Very impressive and I mean that honestly. However, did you notice that you used the words investigation, examination, deductive, reasoning, all in the same vien and in the same context to mean excally the samthing. That alone, should clue you in
Discussion and evaluation of the findings and a final conclusion will lead to one hypothesis being tentatively accepted based on the evidence discussed and the other rejected - because they are mutually exclusive remember.
Droso, show that the tenetsof the processes are mutually exclusive, not the finnding of the methods, or the conclusions. Then you will have started on a process that demonstrates IDs process as invalid and non-scientific
You can start this by dismissing this obsession you have that the positions are mutually exclusive. After all, processes are just processes, correct? First things first
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Drosophilla, posted 01-05-2012 7:34 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Drosophilla, posted 01-07-2012 3:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 220 of 358 (646846)
01-06-2012 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by bluegenes
01-03-2012 9:58 AM


LOL and ROFLOL
Hi bluegenes,
A lot of irrelevant blather, but congratulations:
Because the earth has evolved a certain type of atmosphere and because an animal with a certain type of vision aligned its eyes towards the sky.
You have added to the description of how it happened that the sky appears blue.
You have also used the word evolve without distinguishing which type you are invoking, which can lead to confusion for other people on this thread (astronomical evolution is about changes that happen during the development of stars, planetary systems etc, not biological evolution, which is the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities).
Message 151: Who is it about: the sky.
What happened: it appears to be blue.
Where did it take place: over my back yard.
When did it happen: January 2, 2012 at 11:00 am est.
How did it happen: *the earth developed a certain type of atmosphere, where sunlight photons are absorbed by molecules in this atmosphere and spontaneously re-emitted in random directions, an affinity for blue light by the absorbing molecules means that more blue light was absorbed and re-emitted than other wavelengths, and the random scatter from all visible sectors of the atmosphere results in the appearance of a blue sky when observed by beings with a certain type of vision align their eyes towards the sky, even though the sky is technically transparent. ...
* edited to include new information.
Now try again: why did it happen?
Note that extending your explanation to the big bang, or to provide more detail on the (biological not astronomical) evolutionary elements what were involve, will add to the "how it happened" question.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by bluegenes, posted 01-03-2012 9:58 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by bluegenes, posted 01-06-2012 8:19 PM RAZD has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 221 of 358 (646850)
01-06-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by RAZD
01-06-2012 7:03 PM


Will these claims ever be defended?
Zen Deist writes:
The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose.
Hi Zen. What I picked you up on earlier in the thread was that you seemed to be implying the view expressed above. You then used the exact phrase above in a reply to me. Message 143
In the course of the discussion, you've found a dictionary definition which tells you that "why" is used in questions relating to reason and cause, as well as purpose.
Is your problem just not being able to admit that you were wrong?
Now, for all I know, you and Dawn Bertot may have heads which inhabit a bizarre religious world in which the causes of all things are purposeful. Is that the case for you?
If not, you should realise that your statement that I've quoted above is wrong. The proper use of why is to ask questions about cause, reason or purpose.
And to claim that science doesn't ask or answer "why" questions is absolutely wrong, as I've demonstrated directly by linking to the literature on google scholar. It's a claim you've made a number of times on this board. Scientists are very interested in the causes of things, the reasons behind things, and sometimes even purpose.
Do you want to defend your view that science doesn't ask "why" questions on a separate thread, as well as defending your view expressed in the sentence I quoted above?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2012 7:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2012 10:28 PM bluegenes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 222 of 358 (646857)
01-06-2012 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by bluegenes
01-06-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Will these claims ever be defended?
Hi bluegenes
In the course of the discussion, you've found a dictionary definition which tells you that "why" is used in questions relating to reason and cause, as well as purpose.
In Message 151 I corrected your misinterpretation of the definition:
You need to pay closer attention to the way those words are used in the definition:
For what does it rain?
For what reason does it rain?
For what cause does it rain?
For what purpose does it rain?
Let's stick to the blue sky rather than follow you down another rabbit hole of red herrings, and try to keep this in the context offered: Who What Where When Why and How.
For what is the sky blue?
For what reason is the sky blue?
For what cause is the sky blue?
For what purpose is the sky blue?
And still you have not answered why the sky is blue.
ibid: Note that to provide a complete answer you need to provide something not already covered by the other questions.
For what reason, for what purpose, and for what cause would one use the 5w's +H questions? To help clarify your thinking into discrete aspects of the issues involved.
It seems that your inability to explain why the sky is blue, mistaking how it happened for why it happened, proves my point.
quote:
The maxim of the Five W's (and one H) is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[2]
  • Who is it about?
  • What happened?
  • Where did it take place?
  • When did it take place?
  • Why did it happen?
  • How did it happen?

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by bluegenes, posted 01-06-2012 8:19 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by bluegenes, posted 01-06-2012 10:56 PM RAZD has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 223 of 358 (646862)
01-06-2012 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by RAZD
01-06-2012 10:28 PM


Re: Will these claims ever be defended?
Zen Deist writes:
I corrected your misinterpretation of the definition:
No. You just showed me that you hadn't understood what was important in the definition. Before you dig yourself deeper into a hole, have a look at these links.
"Why is the sky blue"
"How is the sky blue"
Zen Deist writes:
Note that to provide a complete answer you need to provide something not already covered by the other questions.
Why are you now making up rules about English usage? Why not just admit that you are wrong, and that science can and does ask why questions?
Below is a paper in the American Journal of Physics expressing the view that the role of human colour vision should play a more important part in answers to the question "why is the sky blue?".
One of thousands of examples we can find of scientists disobeying Zen Deist's fantasy rules

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2012 10:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 8:13 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 230 by xongsmith, posted 01-07-2012 3:31 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 224 of 358 (646897)
01-07-2012 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by bluegenes
01-06-2012 10:56 PM


Re: Will these claims ever be defended?
Hi bluegenes,
Zen Deist writes:
I corrected your misinterpretation of the definition:
No.
Yes, you had misread how cause was used. For what cause is the phrase.
Below is a paper in the American Journal of Physics expressing the view that the role of human colour vision should play a more important part in answers to the question "why is the sky blue?".
Still more of the answer to how it happens that that the sky appears blue,
Still no answer to why the sky happens to appear blue.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by bluegenes, posted 01-06-2012 10:56 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by bluegenes, posted 01-07-2012 9:57 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 226 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-07-2012 10:57 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 227 by nwr, posted 01-07-2012 12:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 225 of 358 (646922)
01-07-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
01-07-2012 8:13 AM


Re: Will these claims ever be defended?
Zen Diest writes:
Still no answer to why the sky happens to appear blue.
You're assuming your own personal definition of "why" in order to reach your conclusions.
Thread proposal coming up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 8:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024