Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery Institute loses one
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 46 of 103 (237738)
08-27-2005 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
08-27-2005 1:29 PM


Re: phishy phrasing
Does it? Or does it suggest that there could be other natural mechanisms possible and that they shouldn't be discounted out of hand just because we already have mutation and natural selection?
Sure, that suggestion is valid. ID as possible is not exclusive.
Again, they did not specifically ask for an endorsement of ID in the statement (yet it is still presented as one) all they did was couch skepticism in seductive phraseology.
Do you find the phrasing seductive? I don't. It seems straight forward to me. I don't see any "phunny business" in the statement by itself. Its use, on the other hand, is a different story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2005 1:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2005 4:40 PM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 47 of 103 (237744)
08-27-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
08-27-2005 1:36 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
I said:
quote:
... and these scientist do hold skepticism regarding the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Then ID is the avenue to explore it.
To which you responded:
Why? What give ID any better credibility than uncle bob's crank ideas? Let me rephrase that: what gives ID a single element of credibility compared to uncle bob's crank ideas? If evolution shows why people can't fly, and we cannot explain {theoretical event A} by the current theories of evolution, then we can fly???
Well that's what I want to find out with the project. If the majority of these scientist answered the statement with an eye towards other naturally occuring phenomenon specifically exclusive of ID, then DI misled them by not stating its subsequent use to promote ID. If OTOH, they answered as part of a general discussion of ID, then that gives more credence towards further examination of ID as opposed to uncle bob or IPU's or whatever.
When I say credence I'm not saying ID is valid or scientific, just that a portion of the scientific community is intrigued by it and may be willing to see it examined further rather than dismissed out of hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2005 1:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2005 4:36 PM Monk has replied
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2005 5:44 PM Monk has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 103 (237755)
08-27-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Monk
08-27-2005 4:15 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
If OTOH, they answered as part of a general discussion of ID, then that gives more credence towards further examination of ID as opposed to uncle bob or IPU's or whatever.
Still logically false.
That Dawkins endorses evolution does not make evolution any more valid.
1 billion scientists opinions have no validity as opposed to evidence.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Monk, posted 08-27-2005 4:15 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Monk, posted 08-27-2005 5:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 103 (237757)
08-27-2005 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Monk
08-27-2005 3:56 PM


Re: phishy phrasing
I used to be involved with public surveys. The way you word a question can influence the answer you get. Unscrupulous pollsters know this and intentionally slant their questions to get the answers they want. Politicians do this. DI did this.
The hardest part of running an honest poll is phrasing the questions in answer neutral ways. Anything that is not neutral is seductive.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Monk, posted 08-27-2005 3:56 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Monk, posted 08-27-2005 5:12 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 50 of 103 (237767)
08-27-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
08-27-2005 4:36 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
That Dawkins endorses evolution does not make evolution any more valid. 1 billion scientists opinions have no validity as opposed to evidence.
You didn't read my qualifier, here it is again.
When I say credence I'm not saying ID is valid or scientific, just that a portion of the scientific community is intrigued by it and may be willing to see it examined further rather than dismissed out of hand.
This is why I would not put ID in the same category as uncle bob.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2005 4:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2005 5:28 PM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 51 of 103 (237772)
08-27-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
08-27-2005 4:40 PM


Re: phishy phrasing
The hardest part of running an honest poll is phrasing the questions in answer neutral ways. Anything that is not neutral is seductive.
Absolutely true. But again. I find nothing seductive about the statement. If the statement was not used exactly as phrased in the pdf file, or if they asked a slightly different phrase and stuck all the names to the one in the pdf, then you have a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2005 4:40 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 08-27-2005 5:30 PM Monk has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 103 (237776)
08-27-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Monk
08-27-2005 5:07 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
You didn't read my qualifier, here it is again.
No, I saw it and dismissed it as the logical fallacy that it is. It is an appeal to authority, and in this case the authorities in question don't have a clue, or they would be writting papers about the evidence and theories and observations.
That makes their opinions no more valid than uncle bob's no matter what their degree or the institution they work for.
This is why I would not put ID in the same category as uncle bob.
Neither would I. Lower would be more appropriate, imho. Uncle bob has an open mind and ID is {assumption first, then the evidence} thinking.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Monk, posted 08-27-2005 5:07 PM Monk has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 53 of 103 (237778)
08-27-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Monk
08-27-2005 5:12 PM


Re: phishy phrasing
well, when we formulate our little survey, we'll have to be very careful about how we word things.
i think we'll basically state a dozen or so detailed questions about all sides (science, religion, id, creationism, etc) and see exactly where the erlenmeyer flasks fall.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Monk, posted 08-27-2005 5:12 PM Monk has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 54 of 103 (237781)
08-27-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Monk
08-27-2005 4:15 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
Might I suggest that you screen the list for non-scientists, for people who are associated with the DI or creationist organisations and also for those whose qualifications are not relevant.
If a die-hard YEC mechanical engineer might make it onto the list but adds no credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Monk, posted 08-27-2005 4:15 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 08-27-2005 6:07 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 56 by ramoss, posted 08-27-2005 8:25 PM PaulK has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 55 of 103 (237787)
08-27-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
08-27-2005 5:44 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
Might I suggest that you screen the list for non-scientists, for people who are associated with the DI or creationist organisations and also for those whose qualifications are not relevant.
If a die-hard YEC mechanical engineer might make it onto the list but adds no credibility.
that'd rule out people like dembsky, a mathematician.
i think we should ask them ALL. just to be scientifically accurate. we could then group them by field and see which fields are more likely to foster creationism, id, etc.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2005 5:44 PM PaulK has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 56 of 103 (237836)
08-27-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
08-27-2005 5:44 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
I would specifically scan the list for biologists, and concentrate on what they say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2005 5:44 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 08-27-2005 8:27 PM ramoss has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 57 of 103 (237838)
08-27-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ramoss
08-27-2005 8:25 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
well, it'd be interesting to see how the list breaks down...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ramoss, posted 08-27-2005 8:25 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by CK, posted 08-27-2005 8:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 58 of 103 (237840)
08-27-2005 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
08-27-2005 8:27 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
It should be pointed out that if we have emails that it's no more of a problem to email all rather than a selective group - I don't think we want to leave ourselves open to charges of trying to pull a shellgame.
Let's take this nice and slow and I think we can really produce something that is of real worth (well at least for like minded souls on the net).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 08-27-2005 8:27 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by sidelined, posted 08-28-2005 2:32 AM CK has not replied
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 3:56 AM CK has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 59 of 103 (237885)
08-28-2005 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by CK
08-27-2005 8:31 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
Charles Knight
If we were to ask of each member on the list,
"Is either evolution or intelligent design a sound scientific theory? Why or why not?"
would this be neutral enough a question to elicit a reply that requires input from the respondent that needs a definite stance outlining their viewpoint or is there a better means of enquiring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by CK, posted 08-27-2005 8:31 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 4:04 AM sidelined has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 103 (237908)
08-28-2005 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by CK
08-27-2005 8:31 PM


Re: logical leap off the precipice, better start phlapping
It should be pointed out that if we have emails that it's no more of a problem to email all rather than a selective group - I don't think we want to leave ourselves open to charges of trying to pull a shellgame.
Let's take this nice and slow and I think we can really produce something that is of real worth (well at least for like minded souls on the net).
yes, that's basically what i'm thinking. we email everyone we can get ahold of. whether or not they choose to return our email is one thing -- but it's not something we're rigging.
i just think that as part of the data COLLECTION we should sort the results by profession/field, and whether they are research faculty at a legitimate university.
if we could show that all of the biologists on the list don't really agree with di, that'd be a pretty substantial refutation, even if we don't get all of the mathematicians, or physicists.
or homeschool teachers.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by CK, posted 08-27-2005 8:31 PM CK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024