Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   AdminNosy banned?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 72 of 188 (365907)
11-25-2006 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
11-24-2006 11:10 PM


He might have been using hyperbole but his essential argument was that any criteria whatsoever was valid for rejecting science, if one felt it should be rejected.
That really wasn't what was being said. nwr's argument was not that any criteria was vaild for rejecting science, but that any criteria was valid as any other to qualify as an opinion...even if that opinion was essentially a rejection of science.
nwr's argument then was that he didn't have justify or defend his opinion, and Percy's was that this is a debate forum the purpose of which is to do that very thing.
Any reason is fine for rejecting the Big Bang. If you bring that opinion to EvC be prepared to defend it, though. Refusing to debate by saying that all opinions regardless of their derivation are equally valid is not particularly good faith.
I do think you are putting a spin on nwr's words by saying his argument was that any criteria whatsoever was valid for rejecting science. I don't think nwr said anything close to it. Me? I just see someone getting upset at being told he is as qualified to hold an opinion on cosmology as a creationist has of holding an opninion on evolution. nwr was saying that anyone is qualified to hold an opinion even if that opinion was based on seemingly insane logic.
Where nwr fell over was in thinking that this would somehow be an adequate debate position to take. It isn't, it is simply another way of saying 'I'm not going to debate the issue, just tell you my opinion on it'. And that is not what EvC is for.
On this point, Percy was quite right to call nwr out on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2006 11:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2006 8:20 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 11-25-2006 11:04 AM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 188 (365919)
11-25-2006 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Silent H
11-25-2006 8:20 AM


Re: opinion v knowledge
I think I argued largely the same point with Percy in the PAF (though not in the same style) - that was part of the discussion that lead to Percy's 'This is a debate site' post (Message 31) which lost us two admins. I was dissapointed with this because Percy's last paragraph asked for discussion over the issue, but there you go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2006 8:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2006 11:05 AM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 188 (365973)
11-25-2006 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by macaroniandcheese
11-25-2006 3:26 PM


*verb*
so [internet insult word], it's only [noun].[re-stress].
woo! It's not a real internet drama until someone makes a post pointing out what it only is. Now that is over and done with we can get down to the real drama safe in the knowledge that it is taking place not in a brick coffee house, but throughout a series of interconnected networks utilizing the TCP/IP suite of protocols.
With that in mind, a message to Percy and nwr:


*rolls eyes*
so gay. it's only a debate. seriously.

Now, where is that sticky out tongue device that one uses in these situations? The two character sigil that is a quicker way of saying, apologies for the jocularity but I couldn't resist being a little cheeky.
Ah here it is, colon-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-25-2006 3:26 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 125 of 188 (366304)
11-27-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by kuresu
11-27-2006 11:35 AM


Re: Admin's Hidden Prejudice??
If you really think of these people as 2cd class citizens, I'm done here. I don't feel like living in the 1850s south.
In the EvC debate, most of the evolutionists here are 2nd class citizens, with a few first class citizens (ie, people that are doing the discipline versus those that merely debate it). A first class IDist then would not be Buzz, but instead would be Behe, Dembski, Sal Cordova etc. With creationism it might be Gish, Hovind, etc. The people that are actually doing the stuff, not the people that just believe it. Not just celebrities of course - but anyone who does the science, the public debating, is generally consulted with regards to the issues etc.
Given the context of Percy's post, I think that is what he was driving towards. I just don't think there are that many 1st class evolutionists here. There are some, but not as many as there are at, for example, the Pandas Thumb or Pharyngula. If we can Matzke to participate, this place would be going on the up and up. He's probably busy enough with the 'thumb though.

From another perspective, the evolutionists here are treated as 1st Class Citizens and Creationists are second class. There are less moderators from the YEC side, they are often fiercely criticized for every logical hiccup, whereas evolutionists are frequently given passes.

That's how I read it anyway.

Abe: Too late. Woe is me.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by kuresu, posted 11-27-2006 11:35 AM kuresu has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 134 of 188 (366384)
11-27-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Buzsaw
11-27-2006 6:58 PM


evc
So long as you, Percy and other prominent EvCists have convinced yourselves that ID has been proven fraudulent you make my point that there is no place at EvC science fora for any IDist regardless of credentials to participate in science debate. So why is the site called EvC? What does EvC mean? Doesn't EvC debate forums essentially have a fraudulent name?
If the situation were reversed, and the board was mostly composed of Creationists who thought that evolution was wrong, would you complain likewise?
There are only two options. We screen members to keep an even split. Or we force people into having come to no conclusions. Neither seems practical.
An IDer is perfectly welcome to post a thread and say 'This is science, here it is.'. Other people are then welcome to say 'That's a load of bunkum and here is why'.
If the IDer then repeats the claims, or asserts that it is scientific and so we should pay attention. We have a problem.
Let us look at an example. The three domain hypothesis, which is under some debate at the moment. The participants don't ignore fundamental aspects of established science. They take them into account. I would heartily welcome a good debate with an IDist, someone who could present solid research, predictions and the like. Someone who can say - look here is some science.
The problem is that it doesn't happen. Whenever something is presented it is shown to be flawed. There is no point just going around and around in circles - the debate is over if nothing new is presented in defense. That is why Percy had the strong words about ID and Baumgardner - nothing new was coming out if it, the claims were being refuted, repeated and refuted again.
It's hardly a debate in science, it is a repeat of claims.
What does EvC mean?
You think Creationism is science, you think evolution is not? Come here and put your case forward where it will be critically examined by opponents of your position. If you are lucky, you might learn something and grow to understand your opponent's position. If you are unlucky, you will repeat the same claim over and over again and it will be refuted the same way over and over again and nothing will come of it. If you are lucky, you will be able to add further support to your position, which can then be argued, perhaps further support still.
Rest assured, it will be critically examined. Rest assured, repeating the same thing over and over again will be looked down on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2006 6:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2006 8:37 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2006 11:22 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 139 of 188 (366423)
11-28-2006 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Buzsaw
11-27-2006 11:22 PM


Re: evc
I believe I would.
So what solution do you offer? I put two solutions forward, neither tenable. Can you think of another?
You don't seem to be reading me well, Mod. How does the IDist say "This is science" when the establishment has flat out declared before the debate that there is no ID science as an alleged established fact.
As of this moment, I've seen precious little ID science presented. If someone where to come upon any, they are free to say - 'hey look - this is science'. It will probably be another bunch of pseudoscience that ignores data and seemingly makes facts up or references facts that were abandoned by experts in the subject twenty years ago due to better evidence.
It's not like we're stood here saying. ID is wrong, and you can't therefore debate it. I believe you current grudge was that you presented Baumgardner as scientific - it was debunked as pseudoscience and now you think we have declared ID as undebatable. Not so. Anyone can put forward a bunch of pseudoscience and attempt to defend it...as long as they do so in good faith, addressing rebuttals etc etc.
The problem is, that that is a rare debate to be seen.
Baumgardner cites plate tetonics, fossil observations, and other evidence in his flood paper, i.e. the same stuff evolutionists observe, yet the evo hypothesis is considered science while the other is not.
Buzz, citing evidence does not make something scientific. I could say - the sky is blue, which is caused by silkworms stretching their cosmic tapestry. Night time is when they turn the tapestry over. When astronauts or rocks try and go through the fabric, it causes friction and things burn up. Lightening is caused by static discharges in the fabric.
That cites the same evidence that meteorologists etc use - but it ain't science buddy.
So the establishment considers his hypothesis to be undebatable before he posts anything if he were debating, yet his profession is a doctorate degreed scientist.
Its perfectly debatable. There is an ID forum where one can put forward one's ID hypothesis and watch it get refuted or not. Further support would be needed. If I said - why has nobody found a fragment of this tapestry, or the silk worms, and why does the sky not 'flip', but instead gradually change? That would need addressing.
It could be addressed by saying, "It uses the same evidence metos use, its science! There are silk worms, see?" That isn't debate. That's repetition.
The evo people here in charge give him credit for absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Sure. Sure. But you get 0 points in science for ignoring data that refutes your position. Its called confirmation bias and it is a wonderful indicator that pseudoscience is afoot. I'm perfectly happy to discuss pseudoscience with you in greater detail in a thread if you'd like.
At least colleges and universities as well as other establishments allow ICR and other ID creationsts the courtesy to aire their views including the evidences they claim in science debates around the country.
This isn't a college, its a debate forum. You can air whatever views you like - but you have to support them or stop airing them. I don't see what the problem is. If you don't want to support a position, take it to Showcase. Better still: Get your own website. A blog.

If you have nothing else to debate but Baumgardner, then the debate with you is probably over. We know your position, and if you put it forwards you'll just repeat it no matter how often it gets taken to pices. Here is a hint about Baumgardner: Ignoring evidence from the primary literature in favour of a book on theology is not part of the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2006 11:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Buzsaw, posted 11-28-2006 9:52 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 146 of 188 (366503)
11-28-2006 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Buzsaw
11-28-2006 9:52 AM


Re: evc
I would allow for a hypothesis to be debated
That happens. This doesn't seem to be a solution to the problem of a board being composed mostly of one side or the other though.
I'm not saying prophecy should be discussed in science but that it should be allowable for ID folks to cite as one of the reasons for their science hypothesis which may have some connections to the Biblical historical record.
I don't see it as a problem to have that as your starting point. That's the point, after all. The problem is supporting that position. It is all too common for creationists to say "That there was a flood is undisputable fact, there is no debating it, any evidence to the contrary is wrongly interpreted". That's not debate - it isn't a question of wrongly interpreting, its a question of debating in bad faith.
That's because you fail to recognized global flood evidence presented, Exodus crossing evidence and such evidences presented as evidence suitable for ID debates by IDists
Yes yes, of course. I also fail to recognize the evidence that the Kennedy shooting was done by a conspiracy of oil merchants and aliens presented by conspiracy theorists. The only way that anyone can come to the flood conclusion after being presented with all the evidence, is if they had already accepted the flood conclusion to begin with and they filtered the contradictory information from consideration.
Obviously we both think the other side fails to understand the overwhelming evidence for the position - that is what a debate is for.
they should be suitable for justifying debate of them and recognizing those who apply them to science debate hypothesis are indeed doing science in the research they have done regarding the evidences they are presenting such as alternative tetonics applications, alternative fossil application, on site data gathered et al.
I'm not obligated to look at pseudoscience as science, Buz, nobody is. We can discuss this in another thread if you'd like. Presenting evidence that confirms a hypothesis and ignoring evidence that refutes it is pseudoscience. Sorry.
Are you sure Percy agrees with you here?
Well - why don't you actually present some evidence to the contrary? Percy and I disagree on plenty.
I see what appears to be a substantial debate going on now in Showcase between Randman, Dr. Adequate and others. Too bad, imo, that it's tucked away from the public science fora.
I think that says quite a lot. I've seen some debates almost be substantial with randman, but if you think that particular debate is a substantial debate - you have a serious problem.
Citing tiny silkworms as making the entire atmosphere blue is a totally rediculous and unfair analogy, Mod. You need to acknowledge that a global flood such as the Bible describes would have a substantial effect on plate tetonics and that it would likely cause uplift on segments of the crust, et al. This is hardly silkworm/atmosphere grade stuff.
They both require magic and ignoring a wealth of evidence that contradicts them. I see little difference between them, other than floodists have spent longer at it than I have.
Silkworm/atmosphere blue is not debatable and I'm sure you're aware of it. You need to be reasonable in your responses
It's as debatable as 'god-father caused a big flood to kill every living thing but a small group of things which all got on a boat'.
What we can debate is whether there is any physical evidence that that is the case. We can see how many extra entities are needed to be proposed (magic water, a 'no heat from friction' fairy, a 'radioactive disaster prevention elf' etc etc) and refer ourselves to the principle of parsimony. We can debate whether the evidence presented, as well as that which is presented by its opponents, still allows for the hypothesis.
Are you are thinking what is pseudoscience or actual debate of a pseudoscience topic?
Either one might work. A discussion as to what makes pseudoscience, perhaps focussing on a commonly used agreed medium: astrology, and comparison with ID.
My understanding is that showcase threads are to be initiated by members consigned to showcase only. Is that correct?
I'm sure Percy wouldn't object - you can always ask.
Fine. Tell it to the ones also who generate needful response such as is the case here. Are you suggesting you and yours should have the advantage of last word?
Not at all. The last word should go to the person who brought the last unresponded point forward. Repeating a point that has been addressed, is not getting the last word.
Btw, Buzsaw has one z
I know, I know. I plead Firefox. New Firefox 2.0 has a built in spell checker. It takes a force of will to avoid correcting 'colour', but 'Buz' is a trickier one to miss. I've called you Buzz a few times now since I got it - but its no excuse. People call me Modulus - so I know the feeling

Hmmm...from Admin Nosy, to jar/nwr/Percy to the percieved shutting down of debate. I think the topic of this topic should be $topic.#

abe: I'm constructing two posts at the moment that will allow us to take discussion there. There might be a suitable thread already for one of them, in which case I'll bump with my post.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Buzsaw, posted 11-28-2006 9:52 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Buzsaw, posted 11-28-2006 7:54 PM Modulous 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