Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith's Participation in EvC
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 108 of 285 (354590)
10-05-2006 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by nator
10-05-2006 8:46 PM


Re: The wrong idea of fairness
It should answer all of your questions regarding if we should give Faith's personal "philosophy of science" equal weight to that of thousands of professional scientists.
You seem to have given a tight synopsis: "Science is whatever the scientists say it is"
Oh dear..!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 10-05-2006 8:46 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 10-05-2006 9:30 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 194 of 285 (354806)
10-06-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Admin
10-06-2006 1:51 PM


A response to one of your pieces of evidence regarding faiths behaviour. I'm sure I've heard Faith give it this, that and the other way. And that more than once. It maybe the root of the problem and not hers alone but something which affects both sides.
http://EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC -->EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Admin, posted 10-06-2006 1:51 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 2:21 PM iano has replied
 Message 202 by iceage, posted 10-06-2006 2:43 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 197 of 285 (354810)
10-06-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
10-06-2006 2:05 PM


Holy Moly! 9686 posts in 19 months.
I did a survey some months back and figured there were about 90,000 posts submitted per annum. With you doing about 6100 per year and me doing about 3600 that makes 9700 posts per year between the two of us. Thats nearly 11% of the total. Typically we'd generate at least a post per post in response. Often more which cannot be responded to. Say 1.2 posts reply per post of ours. Thats 21,000 odd posts. Nearly 24% of the total!
EvC needs life blood and we're a not insignificant part of it. Tell you what. If your axed I'll retire in sympathy. Power to the people!!
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 2:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Brian, posted 10-06-2006 2:27 PM iano has replied
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 3:01 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 200 of 285 (354814)
10-06-2006 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by PaulK
10-06-2006 2:21 PM


No, that's just an example of the problem - confusing religious apologetics with science.
Which is exactly the sort of handwaving Faith is supposed to respond to day after day. Where Newton et al confusing religious apologetics with science when they developed scientific methodology? Deciding that an Enlightement-inspired backdrop is a preferable one is your entitlement. Deciding it is not is an entitlement too. You pays your money and you choses your philosophy/belief

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 2:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 2:49 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 201 of 285 (354815)
10-06-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Brian
10-06-2006 2:27 PM


Tell you what. If your axed I'll retire in sympathy.
Me too.
We got ourselves an highly unlikely convoy
I'm all for improving EvC even if it means some of the tosh I throw up from time to time is prevented. But let the fine tuning apply across the board.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Brian, posted 10-06-2006 2:27 PM Brian has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 209 of 285 (354825)
10-06-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
10-06-2006 3:01 PM


Percys point above is a good one. And for me too. Why not pick and chose a bit. Certainly poorly disguised posts aimed at needling and ridicule only only aren't worth the effort. Throwing pearls to swine eventually means running out of pearls and flinging muck
(no offence to anybody - just invoking a biblical principle)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 3:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 210 of 285 (354826)
10-06-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
10-06-2006 2:49 PM


I didn't say that. What I do say is that you are handwaving the difference between that and taking religious dogma as unquestionable fact - when the scientiifc evidence is firmly against it. Did Newton et al do that ? And if they did, do we accept it as science ?
The thread in question asserted that it was not possible to do science if one held Goddidit. Faith dismissed the assertion and rightfully so. One can apply scientific method to find out how Goddidit. The OP was enlightenment philosophy and that is all.
Faith frequently has to field arguments which dismiss the possibility of doing science simply because one believes, a priori, that Godidit. But the dismisser is simply assuming his philosophy is correct. He does as she does in other words. I am not speaking about all her posting - just that narrow point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 2:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 3:33 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 213 of 285 (354831)
10-06-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by PaulK
10-06-2006 3:33 PM


If you read it, it held that holding beliefs as unquestionable dogma was anti-scientific. I agree.
Of course you do. You hold to an Enlightment philosophy of science. Science is completely open-ended. Nothing is assumed to be before it is shown to empirically be. Bottom up science as opposed to the top down science of a believer. Both are based on a philosopy - and about as polar opposite as they can be - as is reflected here at EvC.
The founding fathers of science were totally convinced that God existed. They didn't have it in their day but any science that claimed to support the notion of a perpetual universe would have been rejected because of an a priori belief in a Creator God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 3:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 3:48 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 217 of 285 (354836)
10-06-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by PaulK
10-06-2006 3:48 PM


So fine, you count astrology, alchemy, Flat Earth beleifs and all the rest as science becasue your "philosphy" allows ANY dogmatically held belief to be counted as science. I'll stick with a definition that reflects how thee word is actually used, instead of one invented to prop up your position.
The founding fathers developed the scientific method in order to leave behind the disorder involved with the likes of alchemy. Thus was born chemistry for instance.
Creationists are not entitled to "the flood happened and me saying so means it is scientific" Creationists are entitled to believe the flood happened and then go about making an empirical case for it just like any scientist must. They are allowed to compete with alernative views based on the evidence.
The OP in question said they were not allowed to do this. Creation science cannot be - because of the starting principle.
I suspect I'll get a response that will talk all about how creationists have not managed to assemble the science in a scientific way. Feel free to do so - but this is not about that. This is about whether a belief Goddidit preclude doing science.
Faith rejected Stragglers assertion. As do I.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 3:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 10-06-2006 4:05 PM iano has replied
 Message 230 by RickJB, posted 10-06-2006 5:14 PM iano has not replied
 Message 259 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2006 4:34 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 218 of 285 (354838)
10-06-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Admin
10-06-2006 3:52 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
You can't just declare that your facts are facts that can't be disputed or discussed, not if you're doing science
Is Faith permitted to state her belief that the flood happened in fact and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Admin, posted 10-06-2006 3:52 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by RickJB, posted 10-06-2006 5:20 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 220 of 285 (354842)
10-06-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
10-06-2006 4:05 PM


But that has absolutely NOTHING to with the thread or topic.
I am picking up a post earlier which Percy says is an example of Faith doing as Faith shouldn't and am arguing that this is not evidence of wrong doing - given that she was entitled to reject the assertion out of hand.
Percy put up the evidence. Can I not challenge it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 10-06-2006 4:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 10-06-2006 4:23 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 249 of 285 (354914)
10-06-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by RickJB
10-06-2006 5:20 PM


Faith can state her HYPOTHESIS that the flood MAY have happened and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way.
How Faith states it isn't the issue. If she read it on the back of a cornflake packet it would simply be her motivation, her philosophy, her belief. We all have one of those.
What matters is the case made based on intepretation of the evidence. The evidence is available to everybody without favoring this or that philosophy or belief. The common denominator on which we might agree hasn't changed from the time it began: the principles are simple and agree upon.
I repeat (in order to prevent potential side tracking) that: it matters not whether or not Creos have managed to do this science or not. The principles apply to creo and evo and every other philosophy/ belief under the sun. There is a single watering hole at which we all drink. If we can agree on what that is then the science can begin and all this rubbish about "my belief vs your philosophy can cease". Much of what Faith has had to involve herself in involves rebutting the assumption of a philosophy
If we manage to get that far then a proof text of the position of EvC from both sides of the divide can be established and whenever a newcomer decides to plough that old ground all can refer them to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by RickJB, posted 10-06-2006 5:20 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Quetzal, posted 10-06-2006 9:01 PM iano has not replied
 Message 257 by RickJB, posted 10-07-2006 4:06 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 266 of 285 (354981)
10-07-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by CK
10-07-2006 12:25 PM


Banzai!!
If ever there were a clear cut case of an itch being scratched then this must rank right up there. You have been remarkably silent on this thread now that I think of it. Beavering away perfecting this gem no doubt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by CK, posted 10-07-2006 12:25 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by NosyNed, posted 10-07-2006 1:39 PM iano has not replied
 Message 268 by CK, posted 10-07-2006 1:46 PM iano 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