Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

So was I. We accept the claims of science because they're supported evidentiarily, and individually, we accept them to the degree that we're able to judge the evidence at our level of expertise.On the other hand, no amount of expertise or inquiry can make religion anything but a prospect you have to take on authority - the authority of a priest, the authority of a Bible, the authority of your own self.I use religion as an example of what a system that you truly have no choice but to accept on authority looks like. And it doesn't look anything like science.

We, personally, accept almost all claims of science on authority. Unless we are actually "doing" the science, we accept it on authority.
The information is something that comes to us secondhand, not through personal experience, nor can we deduce it by sitting at home and thinking about it. I'm not saying it's not correct to do this. It is correct for me, I assume, to accept the existence of Pluto on authority. I've never seen the planet myself.

I think I see what you're saying. As a practical matter, we all accept various claims on "faith" (using it in the non-religious, broader colloquial meaning), simply because it isn't practical to go out and verify every claim - including the findings of science. However, I'm not sure I agree completely with your use of "authority" in this context. Generally, accepting a claim "on authority" means you attribute relative validity to the claim based solely on the individual or group who presents it. This is what I don't agree with in the context of science (or I guess, any other type of claim). It is at least theoretically possible for anyone to perform the experiments necessary to validate a scientific claim. In fact, that's what the concensus-based methodology of science is predicated on - nobody's scientific claim is accepted (or it's not supposed to be) simply by virtue of who that person is. Some other scientist(s) is/are going to go out and perform the experiments under the same conditions. If the results vary too greatly, then the original claim is either rejected or forced to be modified.I agree that it isn't possible to personally verify every claim, for financial, logistic, or other reasons. After all, we all have other lives. However, there is no [b]requirement[/i] that we accept anyone's claim - scientist or otherwise - whole cloth if we either have the time or other resources necessary to evaluate it ourselves. Since that's not usually the case, the only thing we can do is dig into the professional literature where the claim is ostensibly substantiated with the original data/observations, and decide for ourselves whether the claim was justified. That at least can be done if you're interested enough in a particular subject.So, yeah, we often accept findings simply because it's too hard to go out and personally verify them. OTOH, there's nothing inherent stopping us from doing so if we desire. That's the difference, IMO, between science and, say, religion...

Agreed. However, the difference is that you have a choice to do so. With religious affirmations you don't have that choice. You must accept it on authority because there is no other way to accept it.

---

Proof!!! Grey Goose has plenty of proof.

No, we accept them because of the evidence. If that were so, the stack of research papers littering my bedroom floor would be a hell of a lot shorter - after all, they could skip everything but the first page, that has the names and degrees of the researchers, and the conclusion at the end, which we could accept based on the goatskins mentioned on the first page.But it doesn't work like that. Every one of those research papes is chock-a-block with their materials, methods, and data; because without those things, nobody has any reason to believe them. It's the same information, though, as if we had done the experiment outselves. That's the point of publishing the materials, methods, and data; and it's why you can replicate an experment from the research literature it generates.

Messages should somehow fairly directly link to the topic title " Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?". This is, of course, referring to the evo's and the creo's.We currently seem to be getting off on a science sided debate on "what is evidence".Side note: I have a message under construction, outlining the history of who's admins here at . Maybe somewhere in the next few days I'll get this posted as a new topic. The short version is, there are/have been 17 admins. Of these, 12 are/were on the evo side, and 5 are/were on the creo side.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

So this is pretty unfair of you Jar. Thesitic arguments are just as valid and worthwhile, and should be looked at. But for you - only atheistic arguments are acceptable.

---

Theistic arguments are valid and worthwhile WITHIN THEOLOGY. Creationism is a scientific argument based on theology. Because creationism is a scientific argument it is held to scientific standards, under which it fails miserably.The only way to remove creationism from science is to claim that God created the universe with the appearance of age, including faked fossils and faked ratios of isotopes in rocks, starlight produced in flight, etc. At this point it is no longer a scientific argument but a theological argument. For creationism to be considered a theologic argument you must first admit that all of the evidence does point to evolution, no world wide flood, and an old earth. The only problem is that this argument makes God look like a trickster, and therefore is a poor THEOLOGICAL argument. It is possible to move creationism out of science and into a purely theological argument, but in doing so you define God as something that is theologically disrespectful.

quote:

---

Atheists have this uncanny ability to judge me, yet they haven't the right.

---

I'm and agnostic, but close enough to an atheist in the christian way of thinking. I'm not Jar either, but this statement seems to be issued to atheists and not Jar in particular. You and I have had discussions on purely theological and spritual issues. I have never judged you for being a christian, and I hope that has always been obvious. What I do judge you on is your scientific claims, creationism in particular. Christianity does not equal creationism, as is evidenced by the vast numbers of theistic evolutionists that agree with the Bible and with science. Evolution actually supports the views of some christians, such as the aforementioned theistic evoltionists. How can science be anti-religious if the religious agree with it?My purpose in this debate forum is to confront bad science. The debate within science dealing with evolution has long since died. To tell you the truth, if creationism was not being foisted on public school students by activist school boards I may not even be involved in these forums. I also want to make clear that science is not trying to do away with christianity or any other religion. The standards that I expect from creationists is the same standards I expect of myself and other colleagues within science. Why should creationists get to do away with the standards of science in their scientific arguments? They shouldn't. They do not deserve special pleading just because they have touchy-feely religious views.Science is a cold, hard, unforgiving, and careless bitch, and I love it for this very reason. Science is a tool that doesn't care what your feelings are. Science is a method that never considers how conclusions may bruise your ego or your worldview. Science is a machine that will chew you up and spit your out without blinking an eye. No one should ever go to the world of science expecting to be comforted or to feel better about themselves. Science is the extention of pure logic and reason.Religion is the exact opposite. Religion is where people go to feel better about themselves, about their place in the universe, and about things that are not part of nature. Religion is an extention of the irrational feelings that humans have. This in no way makes religion a bad thing, just something separate from science. Why people need science to support their religion continues to flabbergast me. Even more flabbergasting is the fact that creationists think they can call something "science" and expect to be excluded from the very method that is science.

Suggestion: It would be helpful if you would copy and paste the statement you are responding to in order that the one who responds to you will have it at hand for reply without having to bring up another page for content, as well as to specify exactly what you are responding to in some responses.How so, are they not, and how are they allowed greater freedom than other evolutionists?

OK Robin. You can go to my closed td thread and read up so as to better understand my post.

Wow...leave for the day and a lot of stuff gets missed. Anyway..I can't totally catch up, but I'll respond to this post anyway because it seems on topic.

quote:

---

Anyone who wants their ideas to be considered "science" needs to meet the scientific standards; that's no more unfair to unscientific ideas than a parapalegic not meeting the rigourous standards to be a fireman.

---

I agree. You have defined it simply and truly.

quote:

---

Sorry, Creationists. You came up with the standards, hundreds of years ago. I have no sympathy that you're now unable to meet thise standards.

---

This is where you stray. Plenty of creationists have done scientific experiments using scientific methods. The whole argument is over how we interpret data. You cannot just accuse a creationist of being a non-scientist. I know plenty who write valid technical papers with scientifically proven results. What you take issue with is that they claim the results lend support to creation. What we take issue with is that you say your results lend support to your evolutionary theory.Do you see why I am beating this to the ground? We don't argue that scientific standards are what they are. We do not even argue that we should be expected to hold to them. You are calling us non-scientists because of our subjective interpretation of data though. That isn't fair. You do the same thing. You do a scientific experiment and subjectively comment on its meaning. Their is nothing that makes macro-evolutionary theory scientifically provable...so you are just guessing like we are. So don't call us non-scientists.

For example? That's not true. Go back and read. Notice how often I used words like "seem to, appear to" and "hypothesis." Say what?? Please explain. Like where, specifically have I called for or implicated special treatment for expertise? I presented that also as an hypothesis, did I not? And let the reader go back and read as to whether my hypothesis was nonsense or not. That, of course will be dependent much on ideology, so by the same token much of what you post will also be considered "nonsense" by me and other ID creationists. Too off topic to verify, but I showed that dinos are considered by many notable scientists as reptilian and as to how they more resembled reptiles than birds do.

point us towards one of those experiments - piss in the pot or get off it.If you can find one that has not been shown the door here before I'll be surprised.(hint: Names like duane,Austin are not worth bothering us with).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-17-2004 01:37 PM

Welcome, Maestro. Am I correct in assuming that you are an ID (intelligent design) creationist and not an evolutionist?

Ok...here is my claim. This is important I think.You are practicing science if you use the accepted scientific standards to do a repeated experiment that shows a genetic mutation. AS SOON AS YOU SAY "THEREFORE EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE" you are not practicing science anymore. You are done with your experiment. You are done with science. Now you have moved to the realm of interpretation which uses experience, wisdom, logic, history, and all sorts of things that are not a part of the scientific method.It is fair to call someone on their failure to conduct an experiment properly, but we cannot even discuss the issue of evolution and creation without subjective conversation. My point is this...you have excluded creationists from the conversation by claiming they are not practicing science, when this is not an issue purely of science. Discussing the implications of an experiment is not purely science. You have eternally refused to recognize that you are practicing subjective interpretation of your scientific data.

I believe that a loving creator made us and our world. I do not think science answers questions. We answer questions based on data that science outputs. The question answering is based on our analysis of the data. That is not science, that is analysis, something which is subjective.So, you could call me an ID creationist I suppose, but not in the sense that I think experiments prove ID creationism. I think that reason logic clearly show it on the other hand. But that is different.