Poll: Does Buzsaw Deny Obvious Error?

Thanks, Sylas. I'll keep an eye on the new thread. Hopefully this thread has served it's purpose. I will keep in mind some things I've learned from it to improve my performance.

Hi Buzsaw,I think you've forgotten the original context. Here's the original dialog between you and Sylas: You replied in Message 74 with a lengthy list of citations of scientists, and in Message 75 I pointed out that most were not scientists, and that those that were scientists didn't support your views. This means you still haven't met Sylas's challenge to produce the numerous scientists who support your views.My advice to you remains the same: I think you should first understand the science behind the claims you decide to advocate. It doesn't matter how many scientists share your views or my views if we're unable to support them here with evidence and reasoned argument.In reply to my characterizing William C. Mitchell, a retired aerospace engineer, as a non-scientist, your retort captures the approach taken by your entire post: The credibility of a scientist is generally judged by the contributions he has made. These measures can be both subjective, as in the esteem of others in the field, and objective, as in the number of citations of his papers by other scientists. What criteria are you using to bestow credibility in cosmology upon Mr. Mitchell as a scientist? Since he has the respect of no scientists in the field of cosmology, indeed must be unknown to them since he hasn't contributed to the technical literature, and since he's contributed nothing to the field of cosmology as measured by the technical literature and therefore has also received no citations to his nonexistent papers, what criteria are you using to think he's someone you should listen to? All you're going by is his own statement about a "lifetime in science". Most here could as easily say the same about themselves. For all you know his book is self-published (Cosmic Sense Books), just like William Scott Anderson's (wmscott). Here's more biographical information from Barnes and Noble: He says he's written papers on the subject of cosmology? Do you believe this? Given the complaint of those who don't accept the Big Bang of the difficulty of getting published, and given that Mitchell has no advanced degree and did not even work in the field, do you really believe he published technical papers? A search of the Internet reveals no mention of any papers, only references to his books.My suggestion is to modify the criteria you use for accepting someone's views. First understand their views, then understand the conventional views within science, and only then argue.--Percy

Ok, Percy. I'm not apprised enough on the people to argue the merrits of the listed people. Silas is covering some on his new thread and seemed to be satisfied with my response via the list that it was given in good faith. I think I've at least established that there's a number of folks a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than I who share skepticism with BB and expansion of space. I don't have anything more to add to this thread, unless there's more that you want me to address.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-06-2005 23:41 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Buz, once again you miss the point. The people you listed may or may not be smarter than you but they are NOT more knowledgable (at least not in any significant way ) in the area needed to be able to make any comment on the big bang.An engineer does not have to take any relativity and damm little to no quantum mechanics to get his degree. They may well know just exactly as much as you do: jack squat.We understand that you thought you were supplying a list but it has been pointed out that it is pretty much worthless. There are NOT qualified people who support your position. (Well, there are a few who might be near to the qualified areas -- that is the list that sylas is working with.)It is amusing that you will accept these "experts" without understanding a thing of what they are talking about while other experts (the great majority ) say you are wrong and you ignore them.This is an appropriate time for you to say:"Oh, I see. I made the mistake of thinging that anyone with a degree in anything would be qualified to comment on this. How silly of me. Obviously I would not expect an engineer to do heart surgery on me however much smarter he is than me or more knowledgable."That is about the level of error you made and you still think you made some sort of point. You just do not seem to get it (again).This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-07-2005 00:35 AM

I'm done with this thread and taking some time off. You people can decide what you want to do with me and I'll be thinking and praying about what to do respectfully. I feel like I'm coming to court every time I log in and have had enough of that. Take care.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

This is not a discussion you should retreat from. Your valuable contributions to EvC Forum usually take the form of challenging accepted views, and we don't want to lose that. But you need to recognize when the questions have been answered and let discussion proceed.The question you're now avoiding is how you decide which people to believe. Assessing someone's credibility isn't always straightforward, and there can be legitimate differences of opinion, but whether someone is a scientist or not has some objective measures. The kind of illogic you applied to this issue goes to the core of your problem, and combined with your inability to concede error it causes many discussions to go astray or bog down.In this case, when you found your arguments weren't carrying the day you next claimed that many scientists supported your views. But you produced a list of mostly non-scientists, and so then argued that they should be given as much credibility as scientists anyway. When it was asked what criteria you're applying to assess credibility, you attempted to end the discussion.You must be careful to avoid drawing conclusions in the presence of insufficient information. When you know very little about someone then you should not conclude that, until proven otherwise, you'll just assume they're knowledgable and accept what they say. I'm sure the approach you've used in this thread is the exact opposite of how you make decisions in real life. If someone were to say to you, "Invest all your money with me and I'll make you 20% per year," would you just believe him and give him all your money? Or would you check into his background first? The latter, right?You should use the same quality judgement here at EvC Forum that you apply in your personal life. Invest your credibility in those who have proved they deserve it, and do not just assume they're credible until proven otherwise. And you definitely should not argue ad infinitum in support of people who have not yet earned any credibility and whose views have no evidence, because this is what causes threads to bog down and will eventually get you suspended.As Sylas has pointed out elsewhere, these days anyone can publish a book or create a website, and it is often difficult for laypeople to tell the difference between a crank and someone who knows what they're talking about. And just by the nature of their work, scientists are far less likely to produce websites than are cranks. Cranks have no other outlet for their ideas, while scientists publish in journals. Most scientists have no websites, only a webpage or two devoted to a brief biography, an outline of their area of expertise, and a list of published papers. You should approach all websites from a skeptical perspective, even those you're sure contain legitimate science, because only that way will you be sure you understand before you accept.My advice to you remains unchanged: understand the views you plan to promote and make sure they have a firm empirical foundation (i.e., supporting evidence) before you begin discussing them. If you understand the subject you're discussing then you'll only have to worry about your own credibility and not that of others.--Percy

Not to nitpick (well, ok maybe) but at my alma mater, The University of Michigan, a class in Relativity and Quantum mechanics was required, at least for Electrical Engineering. Now we didn't delve too deeply into it as Engineering is really applied more than theoretical physics.

Too nitpick further:
Yea, my daughter took "relativity" in grade 11 physics but did she and those EE's take general relativity? That is what we are talking about. Some quantum mechanics I did allow for; how much is the question, not, I think enough to do more than fool you into thinking you knew it. That is about what I got in my physics BSc.

Too True! We took a one semester class in it. Just enought to make our brains hurt, our heads spin, and swear to never touch the stuff again!This message has been edited by kjsimons, 02-07-2005 11:11 AM

I'll agree with you Ned. I took a first year subsidiary course in Physics and it only included Special Relativity (and even that was an option). I wouldn't expect an EE to need take many more courses in general Physics (although they might have the opportunity to do so).

Thanks for addressing my post, Sylas. My understanding is that hypotheses are less of a "claim" than theories are. You folks have a number of unknown aspects of your claims and I as well. You claim theory. I propose hypothesis, yet I seem to be the one to be required to defend to the nth. I had not intended it as a direct quote and should have made that clear by not using quotation marks. My apologies to Percy, for that. I guess I thought the sarcasm in it would be telling, but should not have taken that for granted. It appears that in your view, Percy can do no wrong, so far as his treatment and attitude towards this ID creationist. For example, at the end of the gd thread, he comes on condescendingly on me with threats of suspension after I did my best to respond to all the folks who came on that thread with relative stuff. Had I failed to respond, I'd have likely have been admonished for not defending my position of boundless static space. I addressed your stuff, often with questions which you were gracious to answer, some of which seemed to touch on some pretty iffy stuff, like particles relative to expanding space, space within atoms, etc.Then in this thread, you ask for some names. I produce in good faith, names of some prestigious folks who at least agree with me on BB and various aspects of space, such as interpretation of redshift, etc. You graciously thanked me for the list and went at addressing some folks on the list. But Percy......not gratious. Percy comes on with his ususal meanspirited attitude towards me and repeats threats of shipping me out if I don't shape up, i.e. suspension. When the rhetoric about suspension comes on, I figure it's time for me to move on. I'm not budging from my position until someone explains the unanswerable mystery of the submicroscopic particle of space that allegedly suddenly became potent, imo, contradictory to td law one and allegedly began expanding into a universe. My ID hypothesis is, imo, mysterious as it is, at least compatible with td law one as per my great debate arguments.You can defend Percy til the cows come home, my friend, on the basis of how he treats folks here, but you and your ideological friends here don't wear the shoes of an ID creationist. Again, very much obliged, my friend, for taking time to do this. I'll dig up the specific posts referenced to here and edit them in. These are what comes to mind, but if you need something more, I'll listen.Edit: My posts, 85 and 87, imo covered what I needed to say to Percy, then in 96 Percy wants me to offer more defense and brings up the possibility of suspension if things don't change. Yet somewhere in these posts he goes at me for "defending to the death" my arguments or something like that. (not a direct quote)In 93 and 95 I try to bring closure to this stuff, but not good for Percy who wants it dragged on. Then, of course, as usual, had I went on, it'd simply irritate him all the more. Sickening, it has become to me to the point I dread logging in. Unless this man wants me as I am, in spite of my imperfections, (as if others don't have their own) I no longer have the desire to participate under these restraints and this hostile atmosphere. It's not good for the forum nor for me.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-17-2005 21:33 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

If you propose a hypothesis, you must prove it or leave it as abstract. You cannot change the definition of science. It is not your belief that frustrates them, Buzz. It is your martyrdom on behalf of this belief. They want empirical connections with your thoughts...with your passions.I believe that you get frustrated that nobody respects your belief. They may or they may not. But allow them to respect your science! If your Beliefs are abstract, so be it. This is no embarrassment. What is frustrating is when you insist that your abstract thoughts MUST be given Empirical consideration! Mine rarely are. God Himself needs no such consideration, for He exists, regardless of proof! Why can't we leave it at that? I don't know exactly HOW God created this Universe, and I don't care.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-18-2005 06:34 AM

quote:

---

I feel like I'm coming to court every time I log in and have had enough of that.

---

This is a DEBATE board, buzsaw.What do you expect, to be able to just make whatever claims you want to and have everyone nod and uncritically accept everything you say no matter how much it disagrees with established, supported science?The "prosecution" of your contributions you feel is mild compared to what scientists inflict upon their own research, and the research of their peers, every day.Scientific investigation is brutal and exacting. That's why it is so effective and useful.

Where, my friend, did you get this notion that a hypothesis must be proved? Man, bb singularity theory isn't even proved, and theory generally holds higher status than hypothesis, as I understand the terms.Webster writes in my dictionary:
hypothesis: Groundwork, foundation, supposition; to place under; an unproved theory, proposition, supposition tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or to provide a basis for further investigation, argument.So wherein am I trying/have I tried to change the definition of science? That works both ways. It's also their/your belief that frustrates the minority view, which btw, includes a whole lot more folks, many of who are more intelligent and scientifically apprised than I. History attests to the fact that the majority view has not always prevailed in the end. EvC, as I understand was not intended to exclude minority viewpoint or debate, but if that's what you people want, that's what your getting and that's why id creationists don't stay. You like that word, martyrdom don't you? How about that my understanding of certain aspects of science is valid hypothesis for debate as I have shown to be the case? Yah sure. The fact is that others do respect, debate and teach certain aspects of my hypothesis, as I have shown to be the case. You people lable them as cranks, crackpots and all sorts of derogatory and demeaning terms, but other more considerate folks agree with them. Heh. You're telling me that I must either prove hypothesis or leave it as abstract. So if your accepted definition of theory includes abstract thought, then unproven hypothesis becomes, in your view, theory/abstract thought??? To imply that I consistently insist that my thoughts MUST be regarded as empirical is just not true and gross exaggeration on your part, PB. That's you, bud. This's me, buz and I don't claim to prove God. I do care and imo, the secularistic viewpoint, i.e, bb, expanding space and such should not be the only voice allowed in EvC debate and discussion. If I'm not allowed that consideration, I'm going where I can and Percy should change the name of his evolution tea party discussion board he seems to want here so as not to deceive people as to what it ultimately is shown to be.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

PhatBoy will have to confirm, but I think he used the term "prove" in the non-formal sense, and only meant that hypotheses should be supported with evidence and otherwise left as abstract ideas.Normally one forms a hypthesis as a possible explanation for a phenomenon, and then one seeks observations or formulates experiments to try to confirm the hypothesis. Your hypotheses tend to differ from this approach in that they're proposed to follow your unsupported preconceptions rather than explain a phenomenon. You then seek ways to shoehorn your hypotheses into what we already know by picking and choosing among the already available evidence that you'll accept instead of seeking evidence that supports them.--Percy