Just a question...

Bad guess? Well certainly I'll just take your word for it, Dr. A. What the heck, I'm sure you're a genius, too, so let's also give you that. Are we done yet?And yes, I did have a point. Again, I know you missed it, but thanks for your asking about it. LOL

If you have a point, then your reluctance to say what it is makes me suspect that it is not a good one.

Sorry, ringo, but you're sounding a bit disingenuous on this one. When you speak about the need for repeatability, you are strictly correct, but you're conveniently leaving off my obvious use of quotation marks around the word "empirical", together with my open concession to the "unscientific" nature of my observation, both of these appearing within the statement so as to point up my own acknowledgement of same. IOW, it's quite clear, given the context, that I was using the word "empirical" descriptively, and not scientifically (which is where repeatability is strictly necessary). Nice try though.As regards my perceived "creationist" tendencies, I guess I thought Joe McCarthy had left the scene quite a long time ago. Is he hanging out at the Coffee House? As I have stated repeatedly on this thread, I simply don't care to debate with anyone on creationism. Is that a crime? Are we done yet?

An ass am I? So tell me again why the term empirical has anything to do with the terms anecdote, personal or unscientific? You might be able to reach and say that observation is personal, but in order for evidence to be empirical it has to be able to be repeatedly observed by several independent sources...IOW verified.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

My point, for the record, DrA, is made in Message 108. Repeating it here, for the left coast: I DON'T CARE TO DEBATE CREATIONISM WITH ANYONE. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to wade back through all my previous replies to appreciate that I have been making this point all along, to no avail. Does anybody, save for a few exceptions (e.g. iceage & ringo), ever READ these posts before replying? No wonder DiscipleFire was complaining about "piling-on"...it's quantity over quality, even in the CoffeeHouse--reminds me of the time when my old friend Roger tried to swim across his little gravel pond...he was nearly nibbled to death by all the bluegills who had nothing else to eat but poor old Roger...

Quotation marks are not an excuse for sloppy terminology. "Empirical" means what it means, even if you claim to be using it "loosely". What's quite clear is that nobody on this thread agrees with your use of the word. If something else is "clear" to you and you alone, that doesn't contribute much to the debate. No creationist does. They all come here to lecture and tell us how they must understand everything because they use it every day in their profession. I'm not.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

omg, jaderis, if it will shut you up, I'll gladly not insist that you're making an ass of yourself, only please try to find another way of busying yourself--I'm getting seriously tired of all the silly sophistry going on on this thread. (And of course the jackals and jackasses among us will demand in typical knee-jerk fashion that I must back this statement up.)Please refer to Message 108 (my reply to ringo) for my explanation concerning my use of the word "empirical". Also, please study definition 2. of each dictionary entry you just posted (in your feeble attempt to demonstate that I'm an ass and not you): "guided by practical experience and not theory..."...originating in or based on observation or experiment"...."depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory..."Seriously, if you still don't get it, ask someone else to explain this to you. Or else hope for the jackals and jackasses to run me to ground soon if they can.

ringo, the word "empirical" is used in common palance all the time, and not according to your strict legal definition. It's not "sloppy terminology" when a word is deliberately used descriptively and not scientifically, as I was doing. You are being disingenuous, that is what is quite clear to me, and to any objective reader, I expect. (And I suppose you'll say there's no such thing as an objective reader...and on, and on...and on, it goes...)Begging your pardon, though, I am bored sick of it.BTW, thanks for gratuitously labeling me a "creationist". I do believe in divine creation, as I think you do as well, so by your own apparent reasoning, I'd say we're both "creationists" then, if that's the game you want to play.

Your ad hominem was not why I replied. I am merely concerned with using terms properly so that everyone is on the same page. I see that Ringo has replied to your Message 108. I was just as unimpressed with your use of quotation marks as she is.Words have definitions. If you use a word you must expect people to associate that word with its definition, not with your made up definition. Ahhh...the self-imposed martyrdom of fundies never ceases, does it? My intent wasn't to make you look like an ass. My intent was to make you see that you were using the term empirical incorrectly.Yes, empirical evidence is derived from observation and experience alone, but it must be verifiable. It must be able to be observed, experienced and/or experimented with by anyone and everyone. That is the difference between the way you were using the term and the way it is actually defined. That is why it does not belong in the "personal/anecdotal/unscientific" category.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Oh, BTW ringo, you may be interested in rereading Jaderis's Message 109, where he posts dictionary.com's definition of "empirical": "2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory..." Sound "sloppy" to you? No...only different meanings for different usages.Are we done yet?

Don't know where you got that impression.But I was refering to a creationist way of thinking. We have another new member who fights tooth and nail against "creationism" but still has anti-scientific opinions about a lot of other things. It's the thought-methodology that's wrong. Sloppy terminology is a symptom of that. Speaking of disingenuity, I notice that you didn't use quotes around "empirical" after all when you first used the word in Message 67 and Message 68. You only started using it in Message 74 and thereafter, when you were refering to the word itself and not the concept. I let the objective readers make up their own minds. "Without using scientific method or theory" is not a euphemism for anecdote or wild-assed opinion. Empirical observations still have to be as objective as possible. I'm hardly warmed up yet, Edited by Ringo, : Speelling.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Pardon my expressing frustration after having received two days of badgering over terminology where terminology does not apply. I have stated repeatedly that I chose to use the word "empirical" descriptively, and not scientifically. Please get over it. I didn't use quotation marks to impress you, but rather to signal that a less than scientific meaning was to be understood by the reader. This is a standard conventional practice of English word usage. Again, pardon my frustration.Ah, "Words have definitions," you say. "If you use a word you must expect people to associate that word with its definition, not with your made up definition," you say. Now here is an important point, so please try to get it: I HAVE THOROUGHLY DEMONSTRATED THAT MY USAGE OF THE WORD 'EMPIRICAL' WAS IN EXACT ACCORDANCE WITH A PROPER DICTIONARY DEFINITION AND WAS NOT BY ANY MEANS "MADE UP", AS YOU HAVE ERRONEOUSLY SUGGESTED, AND WAS THEREFORE PROPER USAGE AS APPLIED--You and ringo are thoroughly mistaken.Are we done yet?

No one, least of all me, has suggested "wild ass opinion" be used in place of scientific method or theory, and you ought to know that. I am not advocating the use of anecdotal information for that purpose, either.Sloppy terminology may either be a symptom of bad thought-methodology (as you say) or, then again, it may just be a symptom of somebody mischaracterizing someone else's usage, perhaps to prove a point, or perhaps to impeach credibility--oh, but that could never be, could it?Edited by itrownot, : Editted for clarity

Lest your usage be "mischaracterized", here it is:

quote:

---

... I am "past learning" about the existence of God in that I have sufficient empirical evidence of my own to satisfy all previous doubt, and I have now put that question aside. Message 67

---

and:

quote:

---

... I believe in a God, based upon empirical evidence that you may doubt....Message 68

---

and:

quote:

---

...I'm not putting my empirical evidence up for peer review or something--I don't really expect to convince anyone but myself on this question.Message 74

---

If your credibility is impeached, it's by your own words.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

ringo, for each quotation you cite, "empirical evidence" is expressed without quotation marks, but not without qualifying modifiers, namely: "empirical evidence of my own", "empirical evidence that you may doubt" and, finally, "...I'm not putting my empirical evidence up for peer review or something..." Indeed, the last quotation you cite was clearly a scarcastic barb against taking my "empirical evidence" too scientifically (as in peer reviews), instead of descriptively, as I had intended. There are also other instances where I made it abundantly clear in my replies that I was not expecting to convince anyone with evidence of any kind. As a matter of fact, I don't recall any instance in which I might have tried to convince anyone based upon empirical evidence. On the contrary, when I attempted, with reluctance, to describe my "God experience" to iceage, I was clearly embarrassed by the effort to defend the indefensible, that is, to relate certain details that could only amount to anedotal evidence for others. As I recall, this was clearly expressed.As far as I am concerned, all this inquisition into the use of the word "empirical" is drivelous nonsense and a waste of time and effort to defend it any further. But take it yet another mile if you like...you seem squarely bent in that direction."If my credibility is impeached" it will be unfairly done by others who have knowingly taken quotations completely out of context to distort the record.