Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:10 AM
26 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,109 Year: 9,145/19,786 Month: 1,567/2,119 Week: 327/576 Day: 2/128 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   A general discussion of debate (goals)
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 57 (364565)
11-18-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
11-18-2006 12:40 PM


Re: The Debate Topic
Are you an anti-vaccinator?

Topic, folks, topic!


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16097
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 47 of 57 (364569)
    11-18-2006 2:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 45 by Silent H
    11-18-2006 1:20 PM


    Re: The Debate
    Why is choosing to allow a person (presumably onesself or one's child) to be exposed to disease as they naturally would stupid, arrogant, or lethal? It is a risk to be sure, but then offset by some emotional gain that is valid for them, regardless of whether you feel it.

    I would question whether the "emotional gain" offsets rendering one victim dead, another crippled, another sterile ...

    As to whether it is "stupid, arrogant, or lethal" to decide that an innocent child should run this risk for the sake of someone else's "emotional gain", then yes. Duh. Not to mention selfish to the point of psychopathic.

    Perhaps in the vein of this thread, are you open to changing your mind on this subject, and if not is continued debate worthy?

    We are off topic, but if you want to start a new thread, I am perfectly prepared to defend the position that it is better for people not to die of preventable diseases.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 45 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2006 1:20 PM Silent H has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2006 5:24 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

      
    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 1622 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 48 of 57 (364573)
    11-18-2006 3:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
    11-18-2006 12:40 PM


    Not the Issue
    quote:
    Are you an anti-vaccinator? You have not said. You've just danced around the issue.
    But that's not the issue of the thread.

    It is the goal of the debate. So if you are not open to learning something different or to the possibility of being wrong, is it necessary to even continue the discussion?

    I'm open. I don't have my mind made up. For me a discussion looking at facts and studies would be interesting.

    If you feel that you can have an open debate, as opposed to a personal crusade; I challenge you to a Great Debate. No religion or religious beliefs allowed. Just science and nature. If you are up for it I will compose an OP this evening (hopefully). You can show me your evidence and I'll show you mine. :)

    P.S., I'm not a scientist so my evidence is from what I have read or heard from my doctors. If that is acceptable, just give me a yes or no and we'll hash out the details in the appropriate thread.


    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 11-18-2006 3:17 PM purpledawn has responded
     Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 11-18-2006 5:32 PM purpledawn has responded

      
    Chiroptera
    Member
    Posts: 6623
    From: Oklahoma
    Joined: 09-28-2003
    Member Rating: 4.7


    Message 49 of 57 (364574)
    11-18-2006 3:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
    11-18-2006 3:12 PM


    Re: Not the Issue
    quote:
    I'm open. I don't have my mind made up.

    Perhaps the purpose of the debate is to totally demonize the opposition, thereby justifying the righteousness of one's position.

    I know, I know. "Shut up, Chiroptera!"


    Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 3:12 PM purpledawn has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 3:22 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

      
    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 1622 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 50 of 57 (364575)
    11-18-2006 3:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Chiroptera
    11-18-2006 3:17 PM


    Intimidation
    I have noticed that alot lately in some threads.

    There is more posturing and the implication that the opponent is illiterate, not brilliant, on meds, etc.; instead of actual evidence and clear reasoning.

    I do think some people have a goal to intimidate instead of discuss.

    Unfortunately that doesn't help anyone learn anything which should be the goal of the debate, IMO.


    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 11-18-2006 3:17 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 3985 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 51 of 57 (364592)
    11-18-2006 5:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
    11-18-2006 2:15 PM


    Re: The Debate
    As to whether it is "stupid, arrogant, or lethal" to decide that an innocent child should run this risk for the sake of someone else's "emotional gain"

    The simple choices of where to live, using a car instead of walking, or having one's kids take physical sports opens an "innocent child" to such risks for someone else's "emotional gain".

    We are off topic, but if you want to start a new thread, I am perfectly prepared to defend the position that it is better for people not to die of preventable diseases.

    My question was not whether you were prepared to defend your position. It was whether you were open to changing your mind, and if not would continuing the debate be worthy?

    As I said, I am not personally an anti-vaccination person. I could easily argue why (for most vaccines) it makes sense. However I can understand that others may have different sets of values which do not make it "better" to use vaccines and are not "stupid, arrogant, or lethal". Science certainly can't determine what is objectively "better" for anyone to do.

    I'm not interested in a huge debate but it seems PD is willing. My own contribution would only be to point out there are other ways to live, and parents do have a right to make such decisions regarding their children.

    Edited by holmes, : clarity


    holmes
    "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 2:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

        
    Chiroptera
    Member
    Posts: 6623
    From: Oklahoma
    Joined: 09-28-2003
    Member Rating: 4.7


    Message 52 of 57 (364594)
    11-18-2006 5:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
    11-18-2006 3:12 PM


    Re: Not the Issue
    Just out of curiosity, would you be discussing with Dr. Adequate the effectiveness of vaccinations vs. potential dangers, or would the debate be more along the lines of discussing different value systems? I get the impression that Dr. Adequate would be surprised that there is no definite clear criteria by which his value system is superior to all others.

    Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

    Edited by AdminPD, : Remove Warning


    Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 3:12 PM purpledawn has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 11-19-2006 5:29 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 18484
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.8


    Message 53 of 57 (364673)
    11-19-2006 2:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
    11-18-2006 11:55 AM


    Re: One man's "truth"
    I find I am out of ammo. I have pursued the fundamentalist position while trying to remain rational as far as I am able, which apparently wasn't very far. Thanks for playing along.

    Even if the position of my last post were accepted as legitimate, the fact remains that the vast majority of creationists don't buy into it, and at the end of the day there's still the practical question of what you do when creationists march into your local school board meeting and demand representation in science classrooms alongside evolution. In other words, even if it were true that there are creationists out there who understand the nature of science and who accept that current evidence doesn't support literal Biblical positions, we still have to deal with those who don't understand science (apparently) and who will argue ad infinitum while completely ignoring any pretense to rationality or logic that the evidence supports the flood and a young earth.

    But I still believe the OP misrepresents the discussion, which is what I was trying to call attention to when I began my devil's advocate digression. Creationists do not believe they are altering the facts to fit their beliefs. They truly believe that the significantly relevant facts properly interpreted do support their beliefs, and attacking this position head on is a matter of defining significantly relevant and agreeing on interpretational methods, and that's an infinitely deep rat hole.

    I believe that the significant difference between the two sides is that creationists do not begin with hypotheses about evidence of natural phenomena, but with hypotheses about stories, and that they don't see the need for the consensus that develops out of replication. Confirmation bias, the tendency of people to have their attention hijacked by confirming evidence, often to the exclusion of disconfirming evidence, does the rest.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2006 11:55 AM cavediver has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2006 10:52 AM Percy has not yet responded

        
    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 1622 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 54 of 57 (364681)
    11-19-2006 5:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 52 by Chiroptera
    11-18-2006 5:32 PM


    Point of the Debate
    quote:
    Just out of curiosity, would you be discussing with Dr. Adequate the effectiveness of vaccinations vs. potential dangers, or would the debate be more along the lines of discussing different value systems?
    Effectiveness, dangers. The debate would be science only.

    I don't see that there is any way to determine whose value system is better. Those are the type of arguments that don't go anywhere because no one wants to give them up. Which as this topic is discussing, what would be the point of the debate?

    The factual information would need to be debated and then the particpants would have to use their value systems to decide what is best for them given the facts.

    I think we're walking a fine line in keeping this on topic, but if Dr. Adequate doesn't take up the great debate challenge I will make it a general discussion. I think there is interest.

    So till then I think we're done.


    "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 11-18-2006 5:32 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 335 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 55 of 57 (364686)
    11-19-2006 7:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
    11-17-2006 10:40 PM


    Re: How is this a disagreement?
    quote:
    I haven't been to a Dr's office since and all my medicines are fundamentalist wholistic herbal, vitamin, mineral,

    All your medicines are "fundamentalist"?

    Does that mean that you don't have to demonstrate that they are effective; rahter you just believe that they are?

    But anyway, buz, you do know that your (over)reaction to your bad experience with a single prescription drug makes no sense whasover, don't you?

    I mean, I agree with you that a lot of moden medical practice has things the wrong way round and that they treat symptoms instead of the illness, don't focus on prevention, resort to meds and surgery far too often, and are too cozy with the pharmeceutical companies.

    You should be aware that very few of the herbal and so-called "natural" remedies out on the market are tested for efficacy nor safety. Nor do we know much about how many of these drugs (and they ARE drugs, buz) react in the body in combination. That's why, every so often, we hear about a few people going into comas, or having heart attacks, or being poisoned, or dying, etc. from taking herbal remedies.

    Likewise, there are little to no real standards for the education or certification of the many so-called naturopaths or herbal healers.

    quote:
    Whether it's religion, media, education, medicine, or whatever, the professionals often operate on a money driven system.

    And all of the natural remedy people don't? How charmingly naieve.

    The natural and herbal remedy industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, buz, and extremely profitable, since the manufactuers have little to no responsibility to go to the expense of the testing and trials to show that their products are safe and effective that way that pharmaceutical companies do.

    They are in it for the money.

    Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2006 10:40 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

        
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 18484
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 2.8


    Message 56 of 57 (364699)
    11-19-2006 9:38 AM


    I hate autobiographical posts, but I'm going to try one anyway.

    When I was a kid I listened to The World Tomorrow on shortwave radio, a program where evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong would bring you the plain truth about today's world events and (now in bold echoey tones) THE WORLD TOMORROW! His main spiel was that prophecy had been partially fulfilled with the return of the nation of Israel to the promised land, and that it only awaited the return of Jews to Jerusalem for prophecy to be fulfilled, thereby announcing the imminent second coming. By 1967 when the Jews actually did return to Jerusalem I was no longer a listener, but I bet he made a lot of hay when that happened!

    He had a lot else to say, too, and as a born and raised Unitarian I hadn't had much prior exposure to his views. Unitarian Sunday school presents origin stories from many cultures, but it was my own conclusion that the origin story from the Bible was the one that was true. I still believed this at age 13, and Armstrong's radio programs confirmed this view.

    One of the great puzzles for me was how people knew that the stories in Genesis were true, particularly chapter one about events that took place before people existed. The answer that God had simply told people what had happened never occurred to me. I thought the information in Genesis had to have come the same way as all historical information, namely that we'd figured it out from ancient writings and archaeology.

    At some point I realized that Genesis was considered information handed down from on high, and without even consciously thinking it my attitude shifted to, "Oh, it's not true." Not a biggie, not even close, of course, for a Unitarian. We don't even accept the trinity, which is why many don't consider Unitarianism a Christian religion, and we're even pretty cagey (read evasive) about the divinity of Christ. Unitarian services tend to stress Jesus the man or Jesus the preacher (when he's mentioned at all) rather than Jesus the son of God.

    What this autobiographical digression brings me to is the point that there are many ways to approach discussion of the nature of science, and yet another one is to consider the important question of how we know what we know. Or better, how does one assure oneself that the opinions one holds have a sufficient basis in reality? How do we know the Bible stories are true? Or false? Or a mix?

    I think homeopathy is another excellent example for illustrating this question. That is not to say I endorse a digression into a detailed discussion of homeopathy, but it is an excellent example of something for which no one has ever been able to provide any assurance that its claims are true, and in fact studies have repeatedly found that its claims are false. The testimony of malarial victims returning from Africa after journeying there as tourists armed only with homeopathic malarial medicine should be evidence enough in itself, but scientific studies have been done proving beyond doubt its inefficacy.

    But how do you turn aside someone who believes in homeopathy? You can point out that the dilution is so great there could not possibly be any effect. Even incredibly potent nerve agents that can cause death at minuscule concentrations have no effect when diluted to homeopathic levels. Apparently the argument that water retains some memory of the original medicine after being diluted millions of times makes sense to many, and how do you refute the question, "How do you know water doesn't retain this memory?" So you cite the studies, but that doesn't really refute water having memory, so someone inclined in the homeopathic direction is likely to continue.

    So you could take the approach I mentioned earlier, asking how do you know it works? The problem with this question is that it has many affirmative answers. Homeopathic commercials and advertisements are full of testimonials, and many people know people who say it has worked for them. These kinds of testimonials are what many people base their decisions on. The medical establishment is just one dissenting voice among many positive voices, and confirmation basis keeps the attention of those inclined in the homeopathic direction focused on the positive testimonials.

    And so the "How do you know what you know" question has to be refined. You have to ask, "Do you have effective methods for establishing that you know what you know?" And this brings us full circle back to the nature of science: natural, repeatable, falsifiable, systematic. No other method has ever demonstrated anything close to the reliability of science in establishing confidence in what we think we know.

    It is the "natural" part of science that creationism ignores, and I still believe that this is the central flaw in their approach. In further support of this position I offer into evidence the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, which makes the defeat of methodological naturalism, with emphasis on naturalism, its eventual goal. In other words, the Discovery Institute agrees that creationism's lack of foundation in observations of the natural world represents a significant departure from accepted scientific practice. Their remedy is to redefine science.

    --Percy


        
    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 1808 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 57 of 57 (364716)
    11-19-2006 10:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
    11-19-2006 2:39 AM


    Re: One man's "truth"
    I find I am out of ammo.

    I'm not suprised. But it was a good attempt and I am very impressed with your four key paragraphs, with which I will waste space and quote below. You could present these to every creationist who comes here. The varied responses would be interesting...

    percy writes:

    The characterization of the creation/evolution debate in Message 1 simply says that creationists are scientific irrationalists unable to properly interpret evidence. This is unquestionably true of many who come here and who visit other discussion boards around the net. This is because my brothers in Christ are primarily people of faith, not science, and their meager comprehension of the nature of scientific inquiry leads them to make bold and nonsensical declarations reminiscent of Billy Sunday's ignorant, "When the Word of God says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go to hell."

    Unfortunately, many laboring in the name of fundamentalist science make the same mistake as the ever-present declarators of the imminent second coming by repeatedly making extremely premature claims of reconciliation of material evidence with Biblical truth. It started with Morris's ridiculous vapor canopy, extended through silly claims like hydrologic sorting, and continues today with things like Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics, Humphreys' Starlight and Time ideas, and Dembski and Gitt's misguided information theories. These "creation scientists" give fundamentalist science a bad name with their premature and contradictory claims.

    True fundamentalist scientists know that we are not so close as those mentioned above mislead many sincere evangelicals into believing, and by this they do great damage. Being Christian and doing science does not mean turning off your brain. Staring at contradictions and declaring them not to be contradictions is not the way fundamentalist science is going to successfully portray itself as true science.

    True fundamentalist scientists understand this. That is why their voice is much more quiet and you don't hear from them or about them on the Internet. The time to go public is when you have legitimate results to announce and not before. In the meantime all believing Christians should remember that it is faith and salvation that are important and rest confidently in the knowledge that the current creation/evolution conundrum is merely a minor puzzle of the current era that will one day be resolved.

    By the way, my brother is a devotee of Adi Da, though his devotion is as varied and cyclical as mine is in my own faith.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by Percy, posted 11-19-2006 2:39 AM Percy has not yet responded

      
    Prev123
    4
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019