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
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.
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.
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
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.