Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 9:30 PM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, Theodoric (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,141 Year: 15,177/19,786 Month: 1,900/3,058 Week: 274/404 Day: 88/73 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   What type of skeptic are you?
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 31 of 40 (113923)
06-09-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
06-09-2004 2:22 PM


I Think the biggest problem here is the unfortunate example Mike chose. He was merely trying to illustrate (I believe), that there may be a few small cases that would seem to show creationism over evolution, but that evolutionists would not admit it, even if it were expressly stated that these few things alone would not be near enough to disprove evolution, or even to bring creationism into more mainstream consideration. The same could be said, and has been said repeatedly, of the the creationists. I think all Mike was trying to say is that everyone at some point will "fall in love" with an idea and will ignore, try to refute, or bend in circles to make fit with their ideas, any evidence that could be used as well or better on the other side.


"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 2:22 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2004 2:49 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 32 of 40 (113925)
06-09-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz
06-09-2004 1:35 PM


not so
It's a shame I am so un-articulate.

I don't think that is the case. Some of these issues require very careful sorting out and wording indeed. It may take a few tries to get your point clear.

That is a great value to these discussions. We try out a way of explaining ourselves, fail and get to try again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 06-09-2004 1:35 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 3:09 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 33 of 40 (113926)
06-09-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Perdition
06-09-2004 2:42 PM


We all do.
I think all Mike was trying to say is that everyone at some point will "fall in love" with an idea and will ignore, try to refute, or bend in circles to make fit with their ideas, any evidence that could be used as well or better on the other side.

And I think Mike is right about that.

That is exactly why the process of science is so messy and contentious. Only by having a battle over ideas can the best survive (implicit analogy is deliberate) It works partially because of the honesty and work of individuals and a little bit in spite of the human failings of the same individuals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 2:42 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 34 of 40 (113930)
06-09-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NosyNed
06-09-2004 2:47 PM


Re: not so
That is a great value to these discussions. We try out a way of explaining ourselves, fail and get to try again.

YOu could even say our arguments evolve.


"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 06-09-2004 2:47 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 40 (113963)
06-09-2004 4:35 PM


Listen guys, here it is, as bold as anything. I think you would have to ignore the evidence to say the creationist Theory of stuck in a rut species is correct.

Message 31 is correct, thanks Perd.

This is also correct by Ned;

That is exactly why the process of science is so messy and contentious. Only by having a battle over ideas can the best survive (implicit analogy is deliberate)

And it seems that I have even said that evolution is the best survivor when concerning the example of these fossils, at it explains not only the normalized selection - but the rest of the evidence aswell. Therefore I will cease to use that controversial example/analogy and henceforth create a new one if I can.

If we can "See" the possibility of skepticism number two, then we can isolate it and concentrate on being more of a number one. I definately had to drop my number two to cease being a YEC. I "wanted" young earth to be the case, so evidence would be ignored a bit, and I would take silly explanations of a young universe, like gravitational time dilation, in order to comfort my number two.

I'm glad of Ned and Perd's input.

Okay, if I was abducted by an alien, and all my senses indicated I had been, and I had pieces of metal imbedded in my arm, and there were witnesses of the spacecraft(500 witnesses) to independently verify this abduction - then what would I believe?

Would/should I believe it to be true if all the evidence matched up?

Would/should I believe it as false, because I doubt that if aliens existed, they would come millions of light years to fidget with meger me, then disappear into the cosmos again?

Just to confirm, all of the data/evidence suggest this did happen.


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 4:40 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 39 by hitchy, posted 06-10-2004 9:43 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31178
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 36 of 40 (113966)
06-09-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
06-09-2004 4:35 PM


Who were the witnesses and did you say, "Hold my beer while I try this" before the abduction?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 06-09-2004 4:35 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 06-09-2004 4:44 PM jar has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 37 of 40 (113970)
06-09-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
06-09-2004 4:40 PM


The witneses were Albert Einstein, Asgara, NosyNed and you. I'll let you decide the other 496.

Also, the heat off the ufo's lights burned Einy and Ned. Is that evidence enough yet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 4:40 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 4:45 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31178
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 38 of 40 (113971)
06-09-2004 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mike the wiz
06-09-2004 4:44 PM


But is the beer safe?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 06-09-2004 4:44 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 39 of 40 (114121)
06-10-2004 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
06-09-2004 4:35 PM


Number two...
Are you saying that you dropped a number 2 in order to take a number 1?

Anyway, as long as we are looking at it. Do you think it would be correct to identify skepticism as being either objective or subjective? If we did identify skepticism this way, would your #2 be subjective, since we are picking and choosing what to be skeptical about based on our own biases? Can there actually be a subjective skepticism? If you can pick and choose what to be skeptical about, then doesn't that kind of defeat being a skeptic in the first place?

Like the avatar. I think it was from some eighties TV show that lasted a year on prime-time. I think that guy could shoot rockets and bullets out of the front of that thing. Kind of like a rip off of Nightrider and Airwolf. Anyone remember Airwolf?

This message has been edited by hitchy, 06-10-2004 08:45 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 06-09-2004 4:35 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 40 of 40 (114156)
06-10-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
06-08-2004 5:26 PM


Given how bad people are at gauging their own motivations and attitudes (See Michael Shermer's excellent Sci-Am column) I suspect that very few people would give the same answer to this question as a detailed testing might reveal.

But since I am just as bad at judging myself as most people I would say I am skeptic type 1.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 06-08-2004 5:26 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019