|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Arguments 'evolutionists' should NOT use | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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":
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ringo writes:
Well, I guess you are right. I should have said there's no proof when we are talking about scientific theories.
I think "there's no proof in science" is an argument that evolutionists should NOT use. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Ringo writes:
But if we do, do we mean "completely proven" or do we mean "proven beyond all reasonable doubt"? I think we should be comfortable saying "evolution is proven" - i.e. it has passed all the tests. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ringo writes:
Oh come now, you know as well as I do that court rulings and science are two entirely different things.
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.
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ringo writes:
Too bad for them, then.
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 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ringo writes:
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.
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.
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Nighttrain writes:
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? 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.
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Evo: What`s the difference between bullshit and pizza?
Creo: ???? That`s the idea,Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I like asking questions, especially asking them to define terms that I know thay are misusing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024