Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Arguments 'evolutionists' should NOT use
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 16 of 74 (400000)
05-09-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Taz
05-09-2007 2:04 PM


Tazmanian Devil writes:
It is my personal belief that the word proof should never be used in science. There's no "proof" of anything.
I think "there's no proof in science" is an argument that evolutionists should NOT use.
There are many areas where the word "proven" means "tested":
  • 80 proof liquor is tested to contain 40% alcohol
  • photographic proofs are used to test composition, exposure, etc.
  • written text is "proof"read to test for errors
In court, a preponderance of evidence is considered proof.
Insisting on only the logical/mathematical meaning of "proof" instead of the more usual uses of the word just confuses the issue.
I think we should be comfortable saying "evolution is proven" - i.e. it has passed all the tests.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 05-09-2007 2:04 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 05-09-2007 7:16 PM ringo has replied
 Message 19 by Doddy, posted 05-09-2007 7:38 PM ringo has replied
 Message 34 by kbertsche, posted 05-10-2007 3:26 PM ringo has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 17 of 74 (400007)
05-09-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by fallacycop
05-08-2007 11:33 PM


I agree with your second point just fine, and it's compatible with what I said. I was just indicating why the stated formulation was only "somewhat" right.
I completely disagree about "mak[ing] a case for defining disorder as identical with entropy."
The English word "disorder" is seldom-to-never used in a way that means "the measure of a system's thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work." (Encyclopedia Britannica def. of entropy).
For a really good discussion of why you shouldn't use the term "disorder" in discussing the 2nd law:
http://www.secondlaw.com/six.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by fallacycop, posted 05-08-2007 11:33 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by fallacycop, posted 05-10-2007 10:33 PM Zhimbo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 74 (400023)
05-09-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ringo
05-09-2007 3:09 PM


Ringo writes:
I think "there's no proof in science" is an argument that evolutionists should NOT use.
Well, I guess you are right. I should have said there's no proof when we are talking about scientific theories.
Insisting on only the logical/mathematical meaning of "proof" instead of the more usual uses of the word just confuses the issue.
Not really. People need to understand that the bulk of the scientific community is very willing to abandon a theory once it's been disproven. You can't disprove something that has already been proven.
I think we should be comfortable saying "evolution is proven" - i.e. it has passed all the tests.
While I somewhat agree with you, the skeptic in me still feel uncomfortable saying evolution has been proven. It kinda goes against everything I've been taught about science.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 05-09-2007 3:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 05-09-2007 7:54 PM Taz has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 19 of 74 (400026)
05-09-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ringo
05-09-2007 3:09 PM


Ringo writes:
I think we should be comfortable saying "evolution is proven" - i.e. it has passed all the tests.
But if we do, do we mean "completely proven" or do we mean "proven beyond all reasonable doubt"?

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 05-09-2007 3:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 05-09-2007 7:49 PM Doddy has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 20 of 74 (400030)
05-09-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Doddy
05-09-2007 7:38 PM


Doddy writes:
... do we mean "completely proven" or do we mean "proven beyond all reasonable doubt"?
"Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the way most people - including creos - think of "proof". Why talk about "complete" proofs to people who don't even know what they are?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Doddy, posted 05-09-2007 7:38 PM Doddy has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 21 of 74 (400032)
05-09-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
05-09-2007 7:16 PM


Tazmanian Devil writes:
You can't disprove something that has already been proven.
Sure you can. Court rulings are overturned all the time - and that's the way most people think of "proof". He was proven guilty by the best evidence we had available. Now he's been proven innocent by even better evidence.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 05-09-2007 7:16 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 05-09-2007 9:28 PM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 22 of 74 (400039)
05-09-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ringo
05-09-2007 7:54 PM


Ringo writes:
Sure you can. Court rulings are overturned all the time - .
Oh come now, you know as well as I do that court rulings and science are two entirely different things.
and that's the way most people think of "proof". He was proven guilty by the best evidence we had available. Now he's been proven innocent by even better evidence.
Well, most people seem to think that there is a big fat man in the sky with long white beard who watches you all the time even when you masturbate. Doesn't mean I have to use god as an explanation for why things fall downward everytime I try to explain gravity.
The whole point of this debate is for us to try to educate people and try to get them to get away from a lot of the common beliefs.
But here's a nitpick just for kicks. In courts, people are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is different from just proven guilty.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 05-09-2007 7:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 05-09-2007 10:12 PM Taz has replied
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 05-10-2007 11:52 AM Taz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 23 of 74 (400044)
05-09-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taz
05-09-2007 9:28 PM


Tazmanian Devil writes:
The whole point of this debate is for us to try to educate people and try to get them to get away from a lot of the common beliefs.
You have to educate people starting from where they are. You can't use a whole different set of definitions without confusing them. You have to work into it.
When they ask for "proof" and you say, "There's no such thing as proof", they just shut down. You automatically lose.
Instead, why not show them the evidence you do have? If you don't feel comfortable saying, "This proves that," you don't have to use the word "prove". But you don't have to tell them you don't have any proof either. They will take the word "proof" the way they understand it, not the way you understand it.
In courts, people are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is different from just proven guilty.
And that's very similar to the tentative "proof" that science gives.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 05-09-2007 9:28 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 05-10-2007 12:17 AM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 24 of 74 (400059)
05-10-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
05-09-2007 10:12 PM


Ringo writes:
When they ask for "proof" and you say, "There's no such thing as proof", they just shut down. You automatically lose.
Too bad for them, then.
Instead, why not show them the evidence you do have?
If they can't understand that the sense of proof they seek is an illusion, what makes you think they can understand the evidence at all?
If you don't feel comfortable saying, "This proves that," you don't have to use the word "prove". But you don't have to tell them you don't have any proof either.
Which is why one of the first things I do when I really engage with a science illiterate person is to try to explain to him why we don't use the word proof as liberally as is commonly used.
Remember that most people out there think a simple statement "I heard somewhere that..." or "I read somewhere that..." is proof enough of any wacky idea one can imagine. I honestly don't think it serves our purpose to get off on the wrong foot just because the person we are talking to got off on the wrong foot.
I still say we try to make it clear that the theory of evolution isn't "proven" just like the germ theory of disease and the theory of gravity.
They will take the word "proof" the way they understand it, not the way you understand it.
Which is exactly what I am afraid of. Perhaps I have too much of an elitist mentality. I just don't think it's a good idea to oversimplify things for the sake of people not knowing any better. Just how many times we've seen people who never got anything beyond a high school diploma but happened to have memorized 2 words from their high school bio text book showed up and declared themselves expert biologists? Even when I was a TA of physics and math, I ran into college students that thought they knew better than me even though they were C students. I think talking in their oversimplified terms will only encourage them to be even more arrogant.
And that's very similar to the tentative "proof" that science gives.
Ok, you got me there.
Added by edit.
That you in the avatar?
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 05-09-2007 10:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 05-10-2007 12:40 AM Taz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 25 of 74 (400063)
05-10-2007 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taz
05-10-2007 12:17 AM


Tazmanian Devil writes:
Too bad for them, then.
That's not a very good attitude for an "educator".
If they can't understand that the sense of proof they seek is an illusion, what makes you think they can understand the evidence at all?
Until they understand what the evidence is and what the nature of evidence is, how can they understand illusions about the nature of evidence?
I honestly don't think it serves our purpose to get off on the wrong foot just because the person we are talking to got off on the wrong foot.
We still need to start from the foot they are on.
Just how many times we've seen people who never got anything beyond a high school diploma but happened to have memorized 2 words from their high school bio text book showed up and declared themselves expert biologists?
About as often as we've seen them say, "A-ha! So you admit you don't have any proof!"
I think talking in their oversimplified terms will only encourage them to be even more arrogant.
Arrogance seems to be ingrained in certain people. I've seldom seen it unlearned. "Admitting" you have no proof only feeds the arrogance. If you have no proof, their own "proof" - no matter how silly - becomes more valuable.
I don't want to make a big issue of it. I just don't think it's a good idea to lead with "we have no proof" when proof is exactly what they're looking for.
Drown them in evidence. Shoot down their objections. Shoot down their "evidence". When they have zero on their side, you can mention that your case will never be 100%.
Admit failure at the get-go and you'll never get a shot off.
That you in the avatar?
Dontcha recognize me from my movies?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 05-10-2007 12:17 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 05-10-2007 2:05 AM ringo has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 26 of 74 (400072)
05-10-2007 2:05 AM


Arguing backward
Sounds like Doddy hit the nail on the head about poor defence.
Creo: Where`s your 'proof'?
Evo: Well, it`s not really 'proof'
Creo: The TOE is just a 'theory'
Evo: Well, we understand 'theory' in a different sense
Creo: Evolution can`t explain life`s origins
Evo: Well, the TOE really isn`t about abiogenesis
Etc.
Counter-punching only works against a 'real' opponent. As long as we try to hit strawmen by altering the questions posed, we will look like we are retreating, or covering up our inadequacies. Far better to dictate the terms by giving concrete replies built around overkill.
Creo: Where`s your 'proof'?
Evo: Millions of confirming experiments by millions of scientists worldwide
Creo: The TOE is just a 'theory'
Evo: Really? Then explain why millions of experiments, etc. confirm
Creo: Evolution has failed to explain life`s origins
Evo: Want to buy a 2-y-o car with 500 miles on the clock for $100.00? Irrelevant? So is your linking evolution with abiogenesis. Two totally different subjects. Next question?
Focussing on hard facts that the creo must dispute will weaken his argument (and resolve?), rather than us being forced to defend what can be nebulous proposals. Works for me.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 05-10-2007 2:21 AM Nighttrain has replied
 Message 30 by nator, posted 05-10-2007 8:46 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 27 of 74 (400073)
05-10-2007 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
05-10-2007 12:40 AM


Ringo writes:
Arrogance seems to be ingrained in certain people. I've seldom seen it unlearned. "Admitting" you have no proof only feeds the arrogance. If you have no proof, their own "proof" - no matter how silly - becomes more valuable.
Which is precisely why before anything I try to explain what proof is and what evidence is. We really have to try to lead them away from common language and misconceptions before anything can be accomplished.
I don't want to make a big issue of it. I just don't think it's a good idea to lead with "we have no proof" when proof is exactly what they're looking for.
And my point is we need to show them that what they are looking for is a fantasy.
Admit failure at the get-go and you'll never get a shot off.
Haha. If they think saying "I have no proof of evolution..." is the same as admitting defeat, then I am wasting my time trying to talk to them.
Dontcha recognize me from my movies?
I see... Sorry, never been a fan of cowgirl movies.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 05-10-2007 12:40 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 05-10-2007 9:57 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 28 of 74 (400074)
05-10-2007 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nighttrain
05-10-2007 2:05 AM


Re: Arguing backward
Nighttrain writes:
Focussing on hard facts that the creo must dispute will weaken his argument (and resolve?), rather than us being forced to defend what can be nebulous proposals. Works for me.
Ok, so you have a very good point there. However, what if we have a creo that is a little more knowledgable and turns around to bite us in the ass?
Creo: Where`s your 'proof'?
Evo: Millions of confirming experiments by millions of scientists worldwide
Creo: I thought a scientific theory can never be proven.
Evo: ....
Creo: The TOE is just a 'theory'
Evo: Really? Then explain why millions of experiments, etc. confirm
Creo: Yeah? Then tell us an experiment that confirms that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Evo: ...
Creo: Evolution has failed to explain life`s origins
Evo: Want to buy a 2-y-o car with 500 miles on the clock for $100.00? Irre...
Creo: You're trying to change the subject. We're not talking about cars. We are talking about science.
Evo: What I meant to say is that you are talking about two entirely different subjects.
Creo: No, I'm not. You're the one that brought cars into this. How is car related to our topic?
This is precisely why I think debates with creos are a waste of time. Most of the time, the crowd that is listening can't tell the difference between bullshit from pizza.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 05-10-2007 2:05 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Nighttrain, posted 05-10-2007 8:14 AM Taz has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 29 of 74 (400085)
05-10-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taz
05-10-2007 2:21 AM


Re: Arguing backward
Evo: What`s the difference between bullshit and pizza?
Creo: ????
That`s the idea,Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 05-10-2007 2:21 AM Taz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 74 (400089)
05-10-2007 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nighttrain
05-10-2007 2:05 AM


Re: Arguing backward
I like asking questions, especially asking them to define terms that I know thay are misusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 05-10-2007 2:05 AM Nighttrain has 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