A general discussion of debate (goals)

It seems to me that a lot of time and energy has been wasted on these boards (by myself and others) trying to pose arguments that convince others to agree with our point of view. After much frustration I took a break and re-evaluated my approach to the subject of debate as a whole.Having given this some thought, I’ve come to the realization that virtually all the discussions here can be summed up as a problem of conflicting worldviews.For example, a scientist approaches a topic with this worldview:There is an absolute existence that we try to describe through our system of beliefs. Where our beliefs differ from observable fact, it is necessary for us to alter our beliefs to fit the facts.Whereas a fundamentalist would use this worldview:There is an absolute system of beliefs that describes existence. Where observable facts differ from our beliefs, it is necessary to alter the facts to fit our beliefs.For the scientist, the idea of altering facts to fit beliefs is beyond reason. For the fundamentalist, the idea of abandoning one’s beliefs is unacceptable. As such, these two can never come to an understanding.Every argument will be boiled down to these opposing sides. No amount of evidence will sway the fundamentalist. No amount of scripture will sway the scientist.Let’s not waste each other’s time.

Maybe you're right, but I submit that a true fundamentalist is unable to operate outside of groupthink.They've been given a set of theories on which to hang their facts. Those theories are unchangable - since they were set down by an all knowing supreme being.In this case - Godthink and Groupthink are the same.People could point to scientists as groupthinkers as well, but I submit that the subtle difference between "theories on which to hang their facts" and "facts on which to hang their theories" means that at the very least scientific groupthink is a mobile field, changing as a whole over time.

It seems to me that you've simply restated my assertation that for the fundamentalist, the evidence is pliable and should be changed to fit answers which have already been given.This differs from science where they evidence is the given and used to determine the answers.I agree, that when you assume that you are already correct and can pick and choose your evidence, even alter it, to fit what you've already declared, your job is much much easier.It's just unfortunate that none of what is generated by fundamentalist scientists has any use outside of their philosophy.I mean, you wouldn't want to try and buy medicine from a fundamentalist pharmacy would you? Since there are never any new diseases, and therefore no need for new cures.

I would be amazed if you could find one "scientist" who changed his opinion about evolution based on the "statisics of social benefit".This is tantamount to saying you've got a list of mathematicians who've turned their back on numbers because they've discovered that thirteen is unlucky.Those "mathematicians" may self identify as such, but just because someone wears a cape, it doesn't mean they can fly.

Come on. You know this to be false.Scientists collect data and see what conclusions can be drawn from that data.By your own admision the fundamentalists HAVE the conclusions already. Therefore the collection of data is completely unneccesary, and worse, dangerous. Since often the data points in the opposite direction of their conclusion, they must first collect the data, then discard it out of hand.To say that these two groups work on the same principles is to intentionally mislead anyone who might be reading these boards.I find that no only disingenuous, but frankly, in a vocabulary that fundamentalists understand so well, bordering on Satanic.

Why would you use fundamentalist medicine? Since there are no diseases which havent existed since the beginning of time, the diseases which can be cured have, and those which can't be cured, cant.Medicine can serve absolutely no purpose for you, if you truly believe.The fact that you attempt to "heal" yourself using medicines implies to me that you think that there is some sort of change going on - thus you are violating the core precepts of fundamentalist group think.Which is it? Are you a lock and step fundamentalist or are you just kidding yourself about your belief system?