Education

Firstly, you are right in that in have disagreed with you on the subject we are discussing. I meant that I hadn't challenged any major beliefs or theories that you may hold, so...Secondly you are still missing the point, because I have agreed with both you and Ringo that science does not know, nor need to know everything to have acceptable theories. For you or me to believe. but if you are argueing against a faith system which has a god to explain everything then they will be able to pick holes in your theories because they can. But as I have said before, that doesn't invalidate the scientific methodology or reasoning. I said in the post you just answered, ( or one close to it) it is one of sciences strengths to not be dogmatic.As for the pope, ( and I apologize profusly to those who may have taken exception to the term 'papist', I shall use the term 'God's vicar on earth' in future), your post didn't actually prove the pope accepted the ToE. It stated that it could be in line with christian believe, but with provisos.And you nor ringo have noticed that the word Belief means, "to regard as true". That's all I'm asking you to look at. You have a belief, and the creationists have a belief, each arrived at differently for sure, but still something you regard as true. And you are right in that you don't have to believe in something for it to still be true, due to measurable evidence, for it to exist in actuality. But unfortunately, the converse is true, in that you can have belief without those things, perhaps not you or I, but obviously, there are plenty of people out there who can. that's the problem here, that why lengthy discussion on a forum or in a classroom will probably not make any difference.

I would take issue with your statement that everyone who does the experiment agrees completely with the results. Maybe in a controlled environment but in more complex fields I doubt all the scientists who do it agree as to the why's and wherefores.And I don't think that science depends on faith, just that as I pointed out,(through my educated use of a dictionary) belief means "to regard as true,to accept as true what is said, to be firmly persuaded, to have faith." Do you accept as true what is said by scientists? If you do you, then you have faith.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-13-2005 06:47 PM

If there is any deviation in the results, it must be explained. If one observer gets a slightly different result, then he must be able to explain why it was different. That is what is meant by agreement. But scientific research is a controlled environment. Experiments are specifically set up to control the environment, to reduce the number of variables to a minimum. If there is any minor disagreement in results, it is usually because the environment was not properly controlled. I haven't said one word about the "whys and wherefores". We're talking about the evidence, not the interpretation of the evidence. It is the evidence which is in agreement. Which is it? Do you think science depends on faith or not?Do I accept as true what is said by scientists? Let me give you an analogy:I don't know much about aerodynamics, but there are scientists, engineers and technicians who do know a lot about it. Do I hesitiate to get on an airplane? No. Do I have "faith" that airplanes can fly? No. I have seen airplanes fly. No faith is required.Do I trust that the airplane is properly designed and maintained? Yes. Do I trust that the pilot and the air-traffic controllers are properly trained? Yes.But that trust has nothing to do with "faith". It has to do with what I can see.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2005-12-13 05:20 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sure. And they're welcome to do so. In the meantime, we'll respond by pointing out the huge gaping flaws in their models. Open-minded persons will recognize that evolution has areas where further research is needed, and that creationism has gaping flaws that no amount of research will be able to close.It seems like evolution has the advantage, and well it should - it's more right than creationism. It stated that the pontiff, and his committee on science, accept the mainstream findings of science on the subject of the origin of the "material" human. They do not believe that evolution constitutes an origin of the soul, but then, that's not a claim that evolution makes in the first place, so I don't see that as an issue.Basically, the pope said that Catholics should accept the teachings of mainstream science in this regard. And that teaching is evolution. If you read anything else in his statement, then you simply misread it. It's a ringing endorsement of the scientific theory of evolution, and a wholesale rejection of YEC literalism. What makes you think I haven't? I've already told you that I don't believe in evolution. I don't have to.Let me repeat that. I don't regard the theory of evolution as true. I don't believe it, by your definition. I regard it as accurate. That is, as a model that makes accurate predictions. There's no need to believe that it's true, so long as it continues to be accurate. I've explained twice now that this simply isn't the case. The theory of evolution is not something that I have to regard as "true", and I've been very careful not to claim that it is; only that the theory is accurate.No belief required. Do you understand, now?

Nope, because if I have the lab equipment and the skills, I can prove it for myself.OTOH, if you accept as true what is said by creationists, can you raise the dead, heal the sick, cure the blind, speak in tongues, prove an after-life?

Hi, Rob, If you delve into the history of the papacy, not only weren`t the popes atheists, but I doubt a lot of them were even Christians.

quote:

---

The forum rules require that a topic be responded to on the thread it started on. The thread closed, I believe, and so the option of responding there is over.

---

The subject of if poor single women's birthrate exploded after the introduction of ADC was off-topic in the thread in which it first came up.That is why I started a new thread in the coffee house to allow you the chance to provide evidence for your claims in an appropriate place, since straying off topic is also against the forum rules:

quote:

---

But regardless, right now and right here, I offer the link and the post given by another on that thread answering your questions, and so have now fully complied with whatever you think was required.

---

Well, then, judging by that link, you have based your factual claims upon only a single, very poor analysis that was shown by Zhimbo to be rather pathetic and biased in this post in that thread.So, if that's all you've got, then I can only conclude that you have never done a real, objective, careful study of the issue and that it is highly likely that you are basing your factual claims upon nothing but politically-based bias and your swallowing whole the popular myths about ADC promulgated by the Neocon scapegoat-making propagandists.Of course, I am more than willing to examine any substantive, good quality analysis of the issue if you ever find any.

quote:

---

True, most plumbers keep their "advanced statistical techniques", inventories, etc. at somewhat of a more phlegmatic level.

---

Or, thay actually don't use any advanced statistical analysis at all.At least, not to analyse any data. Like I said, like doctors, they troubleshoot based upon experience and knowledge.And thay don't collect data under strictly controlled methodologies, either.Right?So, they don't have any training in what scientists do every day.Right?

quote:

---

But "advanced statistical techniques" have been so mis-employed by individual "research" scientists as to oft become suspiciously invalidated.

---

Oh, which techniqes are you referring to, exactly, and which individual scientists have misused them?Perhaps you have some examples of papers that you can cite?

quote:

---

I never place much credence in my American Podiatric Journal stats, especially with new procedures and techniques by research scientists.

---

Is that because you do not understand the statistics?I'll bet you didn't have to take but one course, if that, on statistics in college, and I'll bet it was in undergrad, am I right?Anyway, perhaps you can cite a paper from that journal and give a brief explanation of why that article's statistics are being used in a misleading manner.We have several professional scientists here and also several mathematicians who would I'm sure be happy to examine the stats to see if they are appropriate and correct.Anyway, your claim was that physicians and plumbers do basically the same thing as research scientists, and you have not shown that this is the case. You have in this latest post started to denigrate what scientists do, which is strange considering a moment ago you were trying to put yourself, and plumbers, on the same level as research scientists.Do you now concede that physicians and plumbers do not do what scientists do (and vice versa), because they do not have the same training and expertise?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-14-2005 08:05 AM

quote:

---

I would surmize that evos (in general) are pretty narrow minded and are taught one belief paradigm wheras creos have by and large been better educated and are able to incorporate a wide variety of belief paradigms which give them a much broader perspective.

---

Tell me, which group, creo or evo, is constantly asking for and providing evidence to support assertions? Which group is constantly changing and refining and states tentatively what it claims to know? Which group points to an unchanging religious text and claims that it is the be all and end all of knowledge, and must never be contradicted?Which group claims to have the Absolute Truth, and which group claims to not have any absolute knowledge at all?Which group is willing to throw away ideas that don't stan up to testing, and which group doesn't subject their ideas to testing at all?

...You win#!

Depends what you mean by evidence: *statistics* can be a Pandora’s box (as I've tried to demonstrate with NosyNed's ed stats (which seemed informative but invalid).Also, I frankly don't know nor believe you or I can ever prove which group has the "evidences".
I mean, men (and women) seek for evidences that fit the big picture(s) correctly (which no individual nor entity has a handle on). You're a psychologist, Shraf; what "evidences" define the "stream of conscience" phenomena? Frankly, it seems to me the creos excel in metaphysical aspects of explaining the metaphysics of consciousness, music, art, personality types, etc.Surely as a psychologist you'd frankly view that human beings are metaphysical entities with *oceans* of affections (conscious or subconscious). In other words, I don't deny some "behavioral response" research psychologies (B.F.Skinner was c/w the ToE) as slightly valid, holistic psychologies (Adler, Jung) and humanistic (K. Horney, Rogers, etc.) psychologies seem more applicable (to me).My mother is a psychiatrist, I have a b.s. in psychology; I've seen *psychology research* amount to minimal (if any) good. I.e., my entire 11 siblings (excluding myself) are bipolor, divorced, and dysfunctional; I'm the only YEC in the bunch; heck my identical twin violates most of the comparative twin pscych *theories* (another topic) Excellent but paradoxical point. Albeit both sides seem *guilty* in great measure (another topic). Though I personally prefer Absolute Creo Truth vs. Absolute Evo Truth be preached into my ears (vs. (say) no absolute(s)), I agree, Absolute Mega-ToEism overly-abused preaching in science.I mean, I view the ToE has evolved into an Absolute Truth (read the N.A.S. *absolute* exclusion of creationism on "all levels" of science); sounds absolute, stupid, and preposterous to me.Also, Shraf, I don't see the "Bible" preached in my son's AL high school AT ALL (except for non-biblical Xmas and Ishtar crap); so your point might be obselete. Do you really think if the mega-ToE-of-Origins was eradicated from educaton that fundy Biblicists would pollute technology classes (in the US)? As a YEC, I'd agree with you. Mega-ToE-origins seem to me to have failed most-if-not-all testing (another topic).Also, methinks most creos are ToEists that have succombed to throwing away their fundy literalisms. Shraf, your debate may be against non-mainstream creos, the YEC minority. In my frail knowledge, I don't think even Kansas schools are YECist (though I may be wrong).

Whether or not I concede seems irrelevant; unless Admin (not Adminshraf) requests concession. I'll stand with "phlegmatic" in the case of the plumber, and "macroscopic" with regard to the physician's *research*, thank you. Probably this falls under a topic like "straining-knats and swallowing camels in education”.BTW, I am extremely grateful to research scientists and plumbers, BOTH. The on-topic point is that personality type and scope (of *research/practice*) is suggested as variables affecting ToEist convictions and/or biases.To Everyone,Some have suggested "research IQ" (in Shraf’s sense) correlates with ToEist convictions. That seems proven true for majority upper-grads. But to suggest that cramming research science into mainstream *scientists* actually ”converts’ seems to me very difficult to prove and/or correlate.I’ve also suggested "dopish secular thinking", lack of eclectic education (e.g., home schooling, arts, music, philosophy, theology), ensnaring narrow-minded research paradigms, and IQ may correlate with the proto-mega-ToEist movement.-----------------------------------------------------
And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.This message has been edited by Philip, 12-14-2005 02:35 PM

Could you translate that into English?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

As always happens with you, philip, you begin to "baffle with bullshit" at the exact point at which you are backed into a corner.Why not try to make your points without all of the attempt at clever and flowery crap that you substitute for reasoned, clear communication?

Neither. You are proof positive evos can be just as shifty. Shall I produce your own quote suggesting that all research is mere biased opinion, or can be considered that way? Both. Members of both camps seem capable of such activity, depending on whatever pet project they don't want to analyze. It breaks down to the individual, not the side.Once again, you are proof positive.Really, you seem to love dishing out these kinds of criticisms, but it looks to me like a closet case bashing gays harder so that the eye does not fall on them.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)