The problem with EVC

Not sure how these questions demonstrate your contention that the site is "too political" or "a snobbish clique." They sound like individual decisions or inability to answer a question or something more like that.But maybe you can explain.The kind of evc problem I've talked about the most, though I don't fight it much any more, is the bias against creationists, but I don't see how that would be particularly your concern.Lately I'm getting a sense of this general great divide between the scientific mentality as such and the rest of us, which just got driven home to me rather sharply on the thread about teaching abstinence in the schools. Maybe CP Snow's essay on The Two Cultures, meaning the culture of the sciences versus the culture of the humanities, which I think NWR posted a link to recently, is related to this. {abe: The attitude on the science side is outrageously arrogant but this may mostly reflect their inability to grasp the language and frame of reference of the humanities at all. They sure aren't humble about it though. And we on the "humanities" side abhor the language of science -- when applied to social problems anyway, which is what that thread is about. At least I abhor it. Gives me a kind of nausea.}But again, this may not be what you are getting at.Edited by Faith, : edit to add link, and other is indicated in text.

That, that(is not "this") is defended in "scientific realism-how science tracks the truth" and this written from a guy that haunted King's College London and the London School of Economics(1999)
amazon
Stathis Psillos needed a little encourgement from Richard Boyd before he felt confident to dismiss a third possibility:

quote:

---

“(R)ealism requires two distinct elements. It requires belief and it also requires a particular interpretation of that belief. Thus anti-realism, in particular instrumentalism, pursues the following strategy. If it does not withhold belief, then it offers instead a non-realist interpretation of the belief . But the reader will no doubt notice that there is an interesting third way. For one can go along with belief, but then simply not add on any special interpretation of it - neither realist nor anti-realist. That is the way of NOA.”

---

quote:

---

p249 Scientific Realism- how science tracks truth-

---

that got me hosptialized IN TRUTH.I'll get into it but first I have to keep my own politics of this out of my interpretation of it all since this fence sitting of the 90s and internalize the lingo, IBE, UTE, EDR, NOA etc that is supposed to pass. It did not!! Boyd however is STILL on the FENCE this Londoner tried to situate and idolized nothing but the color orange. He walked past me infront of the window in front of me now last week and crossed OBSERVATIONALLY infront and back across me and could not physically make eye contact, even though I had his wife in my sights, quite clearly and fine, in front of him. NOA's ark is coming back even without the MOR(e) of NOA within.Edited by Brad McFall, : add link

Until life gets a hold of them... certainly

You probably missed the joke, not being American. It was a reference to Lake Wobegon

You mean we are human? shit I thought i was Jesus.

quote:

---

The attitude on the science side is outrageously arrogant but this may mostly reflect their inability to grasp the language and frame of reference of the humanities at all. They sure aren't humble about it though. And we on the "humanities" side abhor the language of science -- when applied to social problems anyway, which is what that thread is about. At least I abhor it. Gives me a kind of nausea.

---

I don't necessarily consider the attitute on the science side arrogant. However, this is not the first time I have heard this accusation hurled against those who argue for the validity of science. Usually, it is after those who argue against science have exhausted all hope of using logic, evidence, history, indeed even a critical examination of their own beliefs, against the overwhelming rational conclusion that science is an excellent, if not the best, way to truly understand God's creation.What I do consider arrogant is the attitude that the only path to God is through one exact set of beliefs, that only one individual or very small group have been allowed to percieve, because they are chosen by God and everyone who is different (evidently in any manner) is condemmed to the abyss.BTW - I have university degrees in engineering, physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities (but I sure could use one in the life sciences around these parts). I do not consider that there is such a wide gulf between one form of knowledge or another, just a difference in focus and methodology.As usual I am off topic again.Maybe off-topic. I don't believe that EvC shoud be viewed as a way to confirm beliefs that are immutible and unquestionable. Learning is a behavior that involves a change in the learner. I think if one comes to this forum with the idea that they already know the truth and that there is nothing to learn from anyone, then all they will get is an opportunity to vent rather than an opportunity to learn (not that I don't use it to vent).The biggest problem with EvC is that one's ego becomes bruised when one discovers there are so many people who know so much more than oneself about so many things. The greatest advantage is it provides the opportunity to learn, even from those one disagrees with, from throughout the world.OK admins, now I'm done so you can hit me with the off-topic message again.

That is no doubt the case from their point of view. From the point of view of the other side their arguments are just a conceptually inbred intellectually insulated self-propagating worldview, i.e. a hidebound bias in other words, that dismisses all other worldviews, and treats them as idiots in their dealings with them.

yes because the other side is so open-minded when it comes to other worldviews that disagree with theirs. I think this quote shows that this could be easily attributed to your side as well faithonly at least science isn't willfully ignorent to keep thier faith from shattering under the pressure of evidence that doesn't agree with the bible
if the creationism side has evidence i'd like to see it, and not some ad hoc evidence that ignores counter-evidence or tries to change universal law - this is purely ad hocEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

Do you have something new for me to learn? I already know what creationists say when they evidently feel cornered.Edited by anglagard, : wisecracks deletedEdited by anglagard, : not quite all wisecracks

See, I don't know if this is what Robin has in mind or not. I hope he returns soon and clarifies his OP some. But your post is a perfect example of what I consider to be the snot talk, the snob talk, the arrogance of the science-besotted. It demonstrates no knowledge, no superior thought, and no class, just smugness and self-congratulatory arrogance.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You aren't exactly coming across as the candy coated queen of gingerbread land yourself.TTFN,WK

Niceness isn't the point. I'm trying to say something serious about the science mentality that isn't personal although I suppose it gets to people who are proud of their science mentality. But it isn't personal and it is serious. It's about a way of thinking, a worldview, that has grown up around science, particularly when it addresses human and social problems. It makes a person with a humanities background truly sick to read that reductionistic crap. And then they are arrogant about it on top of their shallowness, their hamfistedness, their blundering around in this arena they have no feeling for. Well, the serious question is whether this could be this cultural divide that CP Snow is talking about or something similar, or even if it's what Robin's OP is about. Certainly what I'm saying is not complimentary to those who buy into it. But it isn't personal, and all I'm getting in return is this snotty personal commentary, so I'm calling them on it. And yeah, candy-coated is not my style. But you are missing the substance of the conversation. Just as they are.Edited by Faith, : Sorry, started out correcting some bad grammar, ended up making substantive changes.

I am going to get nailed for being off-topic

quote:

---

It's about a way of thinking, a worldview, that has grown up around science, particularly when it addresses human and social problems.

---

As in communicable disease, economic prosperity, feeding 2 billion people by using genetic knowledge as Norman Blalock has done in the last 40 years instead of letting them die in the gutter, as a fundamentalist would have had done? Fortunately most people on Earth do not share your hatred of Science, especially the 2 billion fundamentalism would have condemmed to death just in the last 40 years.

quote:

---

It makes a person with a humanities background truly sick to read that reductionistic crap.

---

Science saving lives and improving lives makes me proud to have a degree in science. What's the deal with taking the human out of humanities?

quote:

---

And then they are arrogant about it on top of their shallowness, their hamfistedness, their blundering around in this arena they have no feeling for.

---

I think there are at least 2 billion people who would prefer the arrogance of science to the slow death by starvation of your anti-science gospel according to "Faith."

quote:

---

Certainly what I'm saying is not complimentary to those who buy into it.

---

No shit.

I'm not about to compose a new detailed message concerning the PNT process history, but the following are the two main topics in the PNT history story. Dealing with waste of time threads and their posters... is the topic the led to the birth of the "Proposed New Topics" forum. There is also quite a bit of discussion about the post creation times of the PNT. How do you all feel about the new posting rules? was started just after the "Proposed New Topics" forum came on line.I was probably the main one pushing for the creation of the "Proposed New Topics" forum, along with the very considerable support from AdminSylas. Much of the preparation planning of the PNT is hidden away in the "Private Administration Forum".Essentially, it was started as a "let's give it a try and if it doesn't work we can always go back to the old system" thing. In the early days of the PNT process, as I recall, support for the thing was pretty thin, both from the general membership and from some of the admins. There were a lot of rought edges, and the sytem has undergone considerable refinement. Amongst others, Admin (Percy) was pretty luke warm about it in the begining, but came to like the idea.Bottom line: However flawed it is, I think the overall effect of the "Proposed New Topics" system has been very positive for .AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a bit more content.

Dear Sir,
While there are problems with EvC, I think they are on the whole quite minimal compared to the forum as a whole. You think you are getting a rough deal? You think your position isn’t being listened or responded to? You should try and argue the Evolution case on the many of those Christian run EvC debate sites out there. If you want to see rude and abusive then those sites are the place to go. I my self have been banned and called disruptive for politely attempting to correct a point or two (pointing out the frequent miss-quote of the 2LOTD was one I think).You have made close to 4k posts, and I’m sure have asked many of the same questions more than once: and received the same answers more than once. Now if you continue to ask the same questions over and over again, are you that surprised that tolerance is waning?If you are not getting anywhere on a particular favored subject could it be you are failing to mount an effective argument? If you could manage to present a strong enough argument for a particular point (i.e. God exists, HERE is a link to a picture of him sunning himself down on the Costa del Sol). See. Argument supported by strong evidence. However had that same photo been posted two years back and shown to be a fake, then trying to use it again to support the same argument will get you nowhere.If someone could deliver utterly undisputable verifiable evidence for the existence of God or the claims of YECs then I would find it hard not to accept them. That evidence to date has been sorely lacking. And that is despite very concerted efforts to find it.Truth is very important to the vast majority of us on this forum. We may define that truth in different ways (the religious define the truth as what’s in the bible, while those of a more scientific bent define it as “well it not ”true’ in the strictest sense but the best fit for what we have observed to date.”YoursOhnhai