Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

He does, though. The scientific evidence is avaliable to the public. He just chooses not to avail himself of it. So I don't understand why his mental state is in the least relevant. But the second they try to make any arguments, the fact that they're not able to wield the evidence is going to be their downfall. The people who can't approach the evidence are simply irrelevant to the discussion.

Crashfrog, politics is not about logical arguments. It's about power, which has little to do with logic.

Yes, I can. Energy is that thing I don't have much of.Why? What's your point?

I like the molten iron idea. Does anybody know how we know that?

Jesus Christ. What the hell does politics have to do with it? What are you even talking about at this point? Do you even know?

It's sort of like sonar, only we use the waves generated by earthquakes.

Crashfrog, creationism is a political movement.

What does that have to do with the topic?

robinrohanWell if economics teachers are authority on evolutions' veracity I wondered if as an english teacher you would be willing to express a simple understanding of the disconnect between the colloquial use of a word and its scientific meaning?As you phrased it energy is the one thing you don't have much of probably is the highest level of understanding that people outside of chemists and physicists would be able to muster concerning this abstract concept.That mass and energy are different sides of the same coin is foreign to many.
That energy and time at the quantum level may only be known within the limits of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is a level beyond almost all who study these things except for those who dedicate their lives and talent towards this.My point is that a statement from a non expert about the state of a given scientific venture is probably of little value since it does not take too many gaps in the basic understanding of a field to render you incapable of an informed opinion much less make sweeping statements about the circumstances of the field as a whole.If you cannot fully understand the knowledge science does have about energy you will be utterly incapable of making an informed assumption about the veracity of theoretical physics.
So an economics teacher is not the best one to go to gain an understanding of the structure of the knowledge present in evolutionary sciences don't you think?This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-23-2004 12:01 AM

No, the evidence is frequently not available, pragmatically. What is avilable is descriptions of the evidence. Some descriptions are more reliable than others, and there is an element of trust in accepting descriptions.Valuable fossils are often kept under lock under key, and access very tightly controlled (nearly all hominid fossils, for example). Some observations happen only a point in time, and cannot be repeated (SN1987A, for example). Some observations require prohibitive budgets (supercollider or deep space probes), or unrealistic lengths of time (decades of field work observing Darwin's finches).There are also cases where a novice cannot even understand the descriptions offered; it is fair enough to consider the appropriate stance of someone who does not have the background to appreciate the details of descriptions of argument and evidence, or who cannot get at the evidence themselves, but who can get a working understanding of the main conclusions of scientists who access and report the evidence.Cheers -- Sylas

Hello Again:In post 94 Hmmmmhow about look at the evidence as a reply? Even a layman can, if they are so inclined, examine enough of the available evidence to reach the only plausible scientific conclusion, which is that the diversity of living things on this planet is a result of decent with modification.now Yeah, and they might also read crap like Dembski’s The Design Inference, or Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, or Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, or any other creationist literature, but yet we don’t hear you or anyone else complaining about accepting those publication on authority. Let me ask you, robinrohan; do you accept both types of publications, (peer-reviewed scientific literature and Behe’s book, for example), equally? Do you have equal faith that both are correct? Do you accept both sources on authority?Crashfrog has explained that by and large we do not just accept scientific publications on authority, because the evidence is out there for anyone to examine (quite a bit of it anywayplenty, in fact, to grasp more than just the basics of the theory). You then asked if there are other concepts that can’t be proven that we none-the less accept in the same way that we accept the ToE, to which schrafinator responded with three examples. Yet we do not see people demanding that other ideas addressing these issues be taught in our public schools. So I ask again, robinrohan; at what point do you say enough?You went on to say that since we can deduce mathematically that the Earth rotates around the sun; we are not accepting it on authority. Ok, I’ll biteshow me the math and prove to me that you understand it. Otherwise I will simply assume that you are accepting on authority that the equations are correct. Do you know for certain that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is correct? How about quantum equations? And on and on it goes. So what’s your point? If we follow your logic then we accept everything on authority, not just the ToE, but yet you’re not complaining about anything else.To me, the whole argument comes down to this: Scientific investigations are set up in such a manner as to avoid the very sort of thing you are complaining about. The results are peer-reviewed and then published for all to see. Do I understand Quantum Physics or String Theory? Hell nobut I trust that other experts do understand. You call that accepting it on authority and I do not (as explained by crashfrog and percy in previous threads), but yet we NEVER see creationists bitching about anything other than the ToE. Why is that?

That's exactly what I was wondering.

I agree. I think the economics teacher should accept TOE on the weight of scientific authority, and I was disappointed that he didn't.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-23-2004 01:29 PM

All I was trying to do was figure out a method for convincing that farmer that he should accept TOE on the weight of scientific authority.But Crashfrog got all emotionally hyped-up about that phrase "on authority," and with great vituperation, went on and on about how he never accepts anything on authority, no way, no how, and neither should anybody else who wants to call him or herself a decent human being. (Of course, he accepts many things outside of his field on authority). His reaction skewed the discussion.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

But the second they try to make any arguments, the fact that they're not able to wield the evidence is going to be their downfall.

---

NOT! Polls show that almost all Americans accept either the biblical version of creation or the ID view. I might question the poll's working definition of 'scientist', but I think the numbers about the general public are on the mark.I think robin is right. Politics has everything to do with the popularity of religious beliefs and the rejection of ToE. Evidence has very little to do with politics, at least in this country and no doubt because evidence doesn't mean much to the average joe. He's much more likely to be swayed by emotional appeals than by logic or evidence. Witness the results of the recent presidential election.As I see it, the biggest problem is that few parents teach their kids to think.Expecting eveyone to do thier own research on all issues before making up their minds is grossly unrealistic. People rely on the authority of one source of information or another. Some of us choose the authorities we trust based on logic and reason, but most of us don't.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!