Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Way to Debunk
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 121 of 148 (441464)
12-17-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Kitsune
12-17-2007 5:27 PM


Re: The irony is killing me
My post was on-topic. You're responding the way you always respond to criticism, with a counterattack, usually one that makes no sense, as again here.
As I've noted, as Crash has noted, as Ringo has just noted, there's a fundamental inconsistency in your thinking. Until you resolve it you'll be unable to understand that science is the best way by far to learn about the real world.
Has it ever occurred to you...
What occurs to me is that you're not listening. Most of your replies are an original essay using the previous post as a point of departure, and you rarely address what anyone actually says unless it angers you.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar in 2nd para.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 5:27 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 122 of 148 (441481)
12-17-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ringo
12-17-2007 5:45 PM


The wall, teaching cats to swim and cognitive dissonance
But you seem to think exactly the same way they do.
What we are dealing with really is a more fundamental problem than the way "they" think. It applies to anyone that comes up against the wall of some core foundation for their world view. The effect is more like being unconsciously turned by the wall than of choosing to turn.
It's is very much like trying to teach cats to swims, some few will learn, fewer still will be happy about it, but most will exhibit severe, instinctive, avoidance behavior: they don't even want to think about the possibility of swimming.
The problem is cognitive dissonance:
quote:
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs.
In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs.
The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved, that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.
This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.
(Wikipedia, 2007)
We've seen this kind of behavior even if we haven't recognized it for what it is.
The chain breaks at the weakest link, and when dealing with new information coming from a new source, the weakest link is trust. It is easier to believe that the information is false or the source is lying than that your core belief needs to change.
This also is the root cause for some people going off-topic. Getting a creationist to stay on topic about evolution is like teaching cats to swim. It is easier for them to discuss anything else within their safety zone that is remotely related than to deal with the issue, and I don't think it is a conscious act.
This relates directly back to the op, as this is one of the problems with finding the right way to debunk - dealing with people that are up against the wall and exhibiting severe, instinctive, avoidance behavior: they don't even want to think about the possibility of swimming.
And unless you are a cat that has learned to swim I think it would be very difficult to recognize this behavior in yourself, because you resolve cognitive dissonance in a way that seems rational to you.
I think Linda is learning to swim. And the only thing I have to say is (Bill Cosby voice, pitched high after diving into ice-cold water) "Come on in, dear, the water's fffine ..."
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : the

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 12-17-2007 5:45 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Kitsune, posted 12-18-2007 2:44 AM RAZD has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 123 of 148 (441553)
12-18-2007 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
12-17-2007 8:11 PM


Re: The wall, teaching cats to swim and cognitive dissonance
RAZD you're lovely
I am finding it hard to stay on topic here. We were originally talking about how to deal with creationists who refuse to move their arguments on. Percy is right in that I'm picking which other comments to address, even if they seem to be OT to me, because I disagree with those most strongly.
I would start a new thread now, where I would display less of what is seen here as avoidance behaviour, but I honestly will have to disappear from it and I'd rather be able to stick around to have a good conversation. Percy and I are due for a chat about what science is and what it can discover, and I'd be keen to hear about other people's opinions on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2007 8:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 4:17 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 124 of 148 (441554)
12-18-2007 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by ringo
12-17-2007 5:45 PM


Re: me kill irony
My crystal ball tells me that you're only a short hop, skip and jump from becoming a creationist.
I was expecting someone here to say something like that. Problem is, not being a theist, I'd have a hard time figuring out who created everything.
All I was actually saying is that when someone is "debunking," it's easy to go from the assumption that the debunkee is 100% mistaken. And indeed, you have to be careful in a debate if you concede anything to them at all, because they will take that, run with it, and possibly ignore everything else you say. When I'm trying to tear up a creationist's argument, the last thing I'm going to do is talk about personal questions I have myself of evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory isn't static, is it? No one pretends we know 100% how it works. I think the evidence is there for everyone to see, but I think there may still be some interesting things to learn about the processes which produced that evidence. Some creationists devote their lives to refuting evolution and my opinion from talking with them is, if you throw out 99.9% of the crap, there's a little left over which is genuinely intriguing.
When I get some time I'll go to the relevant threads and ask some of the questions I've got. I don't think this is the place to throw them all out. Some of them might admittedly reflect my lack of in-depth scientific knowledge, and as such I'll expect to be corrected, but I'd like to find out what people say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 12-17-2007 5:45 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 12-18-2007 8:57 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 12-18-2007 1:33 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 125 of 148 (441559)
12-18-2007 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by sidelined
12-17-2007 5:32 PM


Re: The irony is killing me
Hi Sidelined, thanks for the link. It looks like an intriguing site but I have to honestly say that I'm not sure what it's driving at. Can I ask what you got from it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by sidelined, posted 12-17-2007 5:32 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by sidelined, posted 12-18-2007 11:41 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 126 of 148 (441589)
12-18-2007 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Kitsune
12-18-2007 2:55 AM


Re: me kill irony
LindaLou writes:
When I get some time I'll go to the relevant threads and ask some of the questions I've got...Some of them might admittedly reflect my lack of in-depth scientific knowledge...
Knowledge is useless if you do not know how to think about it. The way you debunk creationism is the same way you debunk the paranormal and alternative medicine. You seek the best evidence of the phenomenon and see what it tells you about how well the claims correspond to reality.
You're attempting to apply different rules of evidence depending upon whether you agree or disagree with the scientific view, which makes no sense whatsoever. For evolution, which you agree with, you accept the scientific evidence, while for traditional medicine, which you disagree with, you reject the scientific evidence while accepting hunches and anecdotal evidence. Very contradictory, and it's because you're not blindly applying a scientific approach no matter what, you're instead choosing how you'll approach a problem depending upon the outcome you want.
In debate with creationists you agree with evolution, so you choose a scientific approach. In debate against traditional medicine, you reject a scientific approach and start casting accusations of bias and scientism. Makes no sense, and after all this time it seems unlikely that anything we say is going to resolve this contradiction for you. You're going to have to figure it out for yourself.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Kitsune, posted 12-18-2007 2:55 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Kitsune, posted 12-18-2007 11:59 AM Percy has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 127 of 148 (441631)
12-18-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Kitsune
12-18-2007 4:05 AM


Re: The irony is killing me
LindaLou
Can I ask what you got from it?
Certainly. The purpose of the website is to make you think about the things you take for granted and to show you how easy it is to be fooled by others and most especially how easy it is to be fooled by yourself.
I guarantee you will not be disappointed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Kitsune, posted 12-18-2007 4:05 AM Kitsune has not replied

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


Message 128 of 148 (441635)
12-18-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Percy
12-16-2007 6:24 PM


Re: The irony is killing me
Percy writes:
If you can see it, touch it, hear it, taste it or smell it, either directly or indirectly through instrumentation, then you can bring scientific observation and experiment to bear upon it.
Which doesn't address my query. I was enquiring into (what appears to be) a notion held by you that what is not open to scientific observation and experiment is not part of reality. This for example:
Percy writes:
If we were talking about debunking, then I'd say that debunking involves examining how well claims correspond to reality, which is something that science does very well.
You had said that commenting upon truth was something you were unlikely to do. But you do seem to be able to decide on what is truly reality. How so?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 12-16-2007 6:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 12-18-2007 2:27 PM iano has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 129 of 148 (441637)
12-18-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
12-18-2007 8:57 AM


Apparent confusion
In debate with creationists you agree with evolution, so you choose a scientific approach. In debate against traditional medicine, you reject a scientific approach and start casting accusations of bias and scientism. Makes no sense, and after all this time it seems unlikely that anything we say is going to resolve this contradiction for you. You're going to have to figure it out for yourself.
OK let me try to clarify, briefly, then.
The accusations of scientism come from comments here about how science leads us to The Truth (TM) and how science only measures what is experienced via the 5 senses -- which according to many people here is everything. I don't agree. Wise people who have spent years training in meditative practices and who believe they have experienced the transcendent, are told they are deluded. This is frankly insulting and it shows that while scientific intelligence may be in abundance here, other ways of being and knowing are neither acknowledged nor practiced by quite a few.
There is no agenda for any group which investigates evolution, is there? None that I can see. No one is making big money from digging up fossils or dating rocks. Creationists only accuse them of having a bias because they have a desperate need to believe that science is an evil, godless conspiracy. Most are willing to throw out what they do know about science, or remain cocooned in comfortable ignorance.
I can see you many many others attempting to throw my last 2 sentences back in my face, telling me I have a desperate need to believe in alt med and the paranormal, which makes me no less comfortably ignorant than creationists. However, there are people who are making big money from selling medications. Big pharma is one of the biggest moneymakers in the US. Wall Street is beholden to it. They have bought off many politicians and also many doctors. They pay for most of the clinical trials of their own drugs. They have every reason to safeguard their profits. You've dismissed this before as irrelevant or paranoid but I think most people could see from this that there is a reasonable basis to doubt the objectivity of people involved in that system.
As far as a need to believe, I simply think that there is good evidence that alt med can work, and that aspects of the paranormal are real and deserving of serious study. We can talk elsewhere about studies that have already been conducted. Sometimes in order to be more open to an idea, a whole society needs a paradigm shift. I'm continually amazed at how hard the skeptical view works to preserve the status quo. Allopathic medicine must be right, because it is how we do things, and we have so many studies. Therefore we're going to ignore or dismiss whatever challenges it. Fortunately there are a few people with open minds who are willing to consider other ideas. My GP, for instance, who is more or less mainstream, but told me that traditional Chinese medicine cured his asthma.
I'm not looking for more off-topic in-depth debates on all these things here, but I do not see any underlying contradiction in my approach. I'm willing to consider other points of view, to question, and to look into concepts that skeptical dogma tells me I ought to be laughing at as nonsense. Declaring that something is nonsense before looking into it at all in an objective way, is nothing short of prejudice.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 12-18-2007 8:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 12-18-2007 2:12 PM Kitsune has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 130 of 148 (441661)
12-18-2007 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Kitsune
12-18-2007 2:55 AM


Re: me kill irony
LindaLou writes:
I was expecting someone here to say something like that.
I'm nothing if not prdictable.
Problem is, not being a theist, I'd have a hard time figuring out who created everything.
No problem. Then you're an IDist. Don't ask, don't tell who the creator/designer is.
Besides, nearly all of our creationist members "used to be" evolutionists. It seems to be an easy transition to make.
All I was actually saying is that when someone is "debunking," it's easy to go from the assumption that the debunkee is 100% mistaken.
I have the advantage of not knowing very much. I only debunk what I'm pretty sure is bunk. As a rule, if I don't point out your mistakes it's because I didn't know you made any. It's the whole weight of debunkings by debunkers who know about different things that convince me that the debunkee is close to 100% mistaken.
And indeed, you have to be careful in a debate if you concede anything to them at all, because they will take that, run with it, and possibly ignore everything else you say.
Ignore the bullets whizzing past your ears. I sometimes tell people that - in the context of ignoring (perceived) insults - but I think it applies to ignoring galloping Gishes too. Focus on your target. Don't worry about being a target.
I think that might be in the general vicinity of what Percy is trying to say in this thread.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Kitsune, posted 12-18-2007 2:55 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 131 of 148 (441677)
12-18-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Kitsune
12-18-2007 11:59 AM


Re: Apparent confusion
LindaLou writes:
The accusations of scientism come from comments here about how science leads us to The Truth (TM)...
Here we go again! How many times do we have to point out that that's not what we're saying?
... and how science only measures what is experienced via the 5 senses...
Finally, an accurate précis of the position of the other side.
... which according to many people here is everything.
Everything material, yes. The question you were asked, and that you haven't answered, is if reality is anything and everything detectable directly or indirectly by the five senses (and any reasonable additional sense you'd like to include, such as the sense of balance, etc.), then if there's something more to reality that is not detectable by our senses, how are you going to detect it? Be nice if you'd finally reply to this one.
Wise people who have spent years training in meditative practices and who believe they have experienced the transcendent, are told they are deluded. This is frankly insulting and it shows that while scientific intelligence may be in abundance here, other ways of being and knowing are neither acknowledged nor practiced by quite a few.
Here we go, yet another accusation. Now we're guilty of insulting meditating monks. Could you just drop the accusations and stick to the topic?
There is no agenda for any group which investigates evolution, is there? None that I can see.
LindaLou, you are as blind as a bat to your own contradictions! Creationists believe there's a huge anti-religious agenda behind evolution, and of course there's no truth to it. You believe there's a huge conspiratorial agenda behind traditional medicine and big pharma, and of course there's no truth to this, either. Science wants to talk about evidence and concepts and hypotheses, but just like creationists you want to talk about agendas and conspiracies. The fact of your contradictory position is as obvious as a slap in the face.
It is apparent that no help from the outside will help you see the contradictions in your position. You apparently think that whatever you believe is true, and so any arguments you advance for your true position must also be true (a fallacy of the first degree), so you go on and on casting accusations and non sequiturs at everyone else while failing to do the one thing that will bring understanding: self-examination.
However, there are people who are making big money from selling medications.
The blatantly obvious answer to this hasn't changed, LindaLou, I don't know why you keep saying this. There are people who are making big money in alternative medicine, and they don't have to do any research or deal with the FDA, contributing enormously to the bottom line of alternative medicine. If making big money makes one's position questionable, then both sides are on equal ground, except that one has scientific research behind it.
As far as a need to believe, I simply think that there is good evidence that alt med can work, and that aspects of the paranormal are real and deserving of serious study.
This is, finally, the topic. If I set out to debunk some claim of alternative medicine and instead run into strong supporting evidence then guess what? It ain't debunked, it's confirmed. But how can you with any consistency advocate scientific investigation as a way to support the positions of alt med when through this entire thread you've been arguing against science as a way of reliably establishing anything that might be true about the real world?
I'm not looking for more off-topic in-depth debates on all these things here, but I do not see any underlying contradiction in my approach.
Instead of just denying there's a contradiction, which is just stonewalling, why don't you reply to something someone actually said about the contradictions? It's not like we haven't been specific.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Kitsune, posted 12-18-2007 11:59 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Kitsune, posted 12-19-2007 4:54 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 132 of 148 (441682)
12-18-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by iano
12-18-2007 11:51 AM


Re: The irony is killing me
iano writes:
Which doesn't address my query. I was enquiring into (what appears to be) a notion held by you that what is not open to scientific observation and experiment is not part of reality.
That's your conclusion, not mine. What I've said is that science studies what is detectable, directly or indirectly, by the five senses, and that if there is more to reality than the five senses can detect it raises the question of how you're going to detect it.
You had said that commenting upon truth was something you were unlikely to do. But you do seem to be able to decide on what is truly reality.
What I said was that science is the best way we have by far for establishing what is most likely true about reality. The definition of true that I'm using is, "Consistent with fact or reality." I think the definition of truth that you and LindaLou are using is "that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence." We're not talking about the same thing. Definitions are from Answers.com.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by iano, posted 12-18-2007 11:51 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by iano, posted 12-18-2007 5:55 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 133 of 148 (441769)
12-18-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Percy
12-18-2007 2:27 PM


Re: The irony is killing me
quote:
What I've said is that science studies what is detectable, directly or indirectly, by the five senses, and that if there is more to reality than the five senses can detect it raises the question of how you're going to detect it.
  —Percy
I don't see how the question "If there is more to reality than what xth sensed people detect then how..." raises any more of a question for 4th sense people faced with the 5th than it does for 6th sensed people faced with the 7th. How do blind people detect the quantity "RED" afterall?
What I said was that science is the best way we have by far for establishing what is most likely true about reality. The definition of true that I'm using is, "Consistent with fact or reality."
But when we plug in your chosen definitions we get this kind of nonsense:
"What I said was that science is the best way we have by far for establishing what is most likely consistant with fact/reality about reality."
I think the definition of truth that you and LindaLou are using is "that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence." We're not talking about the same thing. Definitions are from Answers.com.
I don't know about LindaLou but we (you and me both) are certainly not using same definitions. Not that that shocks me. What I'm after here is your justification for the apparently superior attitude. The assumption-of-higher-ground-thing you've (apparently) got going. The appeal to what you-and-your-senses-detect... as if that is the measure to which all others should....er...measure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 12-18-2007 2:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 12-18-2007 9:17 PM iano has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 134 of 148 (441828)
12-18-2007 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by iano
12-18-2007 5:55 PM


Re: The irony is killing me
iano writes:
I don't see how the question "If there is more to reality than what xth sensed people detect then how..." raises any more of a question for 4th sense people faced with the 5th than it does for 6th sensed people faced with the 7th. How do blind people detect the quantity "RED" afterall?
Notice that my definition said "directly or indirectly". Things that are real have the power to affect us through our senses. We need instruments to detect many things in reality that our senses cannot detect directly (electrons, distant galaxies, DNA). That blind people's eyes can't perceive light doesn't mean light isn't part of reality for them. Certainly photocells still work for blind people, and a spectrometer rigged to print braille or to speak could tell them the color of things.
The key question for you is that if there are portions of reality that our senses can't detect, then how do you detect them?
But when we plug in your chosen definitions we get this kind of nonsense:
"What I said was that science is the best way we have by far for establishing what is most likely consistent with fact/reality about reality."
That was a definition, not a synonym. Why would you expect the sentence to still make sense after you replace a word with the actual phrase of definition? The parts of speech won't even necessarily match up.
What I said was pretty clear, but I can rephrase it for you. Science is the best way we have by far for establishing what is most likely consistent with or representative of reality.
I don't know about LindaLou but we (you and me both) are certainly not using same definitions. Not that that shocks me.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that science makes no claims to ultimate truths, because you've been here a long time and this has been said on many occasions, including by me in this thread several times.
What I'm after here is your justification for the apparently superior attitude.
Then start a new thread. This thread is about the best way to debunk, which I believe is to seek evidence of a claimed phenomenon to see how well the claims stand up against reality.
The assumption-of-higher-ground-thing you've (apparently) got going. The appeal to what you-and-your-senses-detect... as if that is the measure to which all others should....er...measure.
But you and LindaLou keep making vague statements like this without ever telling us how you're going to detect anything that your senses can't detect. As long as you continue to avoid addressing what appears to everyone else as a very basic logical contradiction, it's a pretty safe assumption you're wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by iano, posted 12-18-2007 5:55 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by iano, posted 12-19-2007 8:41 PM Percy has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4301 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 135 of 148 (441866)
12-19-2007 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Percy
12-18-2007 2:12 PM


Re: Apparent confusion
Apparently I'm not the only one who is unsure about your definition of reality Percy. So apparently when you say that science is the best way of understanding reality, you mean reality as defined by what is detectable by the five senses, yes? You don't seem to want to lay out your cards about what you personally believe could be beyond that, if anything, and I don't blame you; if you did admit here that you think there might be something beyond, then the resident pseudo-skeptics would be trying to shred you up. But I don't mind telling you what I believe. In fact, I've been talking about this in the Message 116 Christmas Carols thread.
LindaLou, you are as blind as a bat to your own contradictions! Creationists believe there's a huge anti-religious agenda behind evolution, and of course there's no truth to it. You believe there's a huge conspiratorial agenda behind traditional medicine and big pharma, and of course there's no truth to this, either. Science wants to talk about evidence and concepts and hypotheses, but just like creationists you want to talk about agendas and conspiracies. The fact of your contradictory position is as obvious as a slap in the face.
Why are you comparing the sciences that study evolution with Big Pharma? It is not an equal comparison, which I explained in my previous post. You accuse me of seeing nonexistent conspiracies. There is also such a thing as willful blindness. Why would people who work within a large self-perpetuating system making a lot of money, not be biased in its interests? Is this not even a logical possibility for you? Allopathic medicine is based upon some very specific paradigms. If I said we may need a paradigm shift, it would not be the first time in history, or even the history of science. This is how we move our knowledge on. If we always trusted the received wisdom of the orthodox majority, we'd never do that moving on, we'd be stuck.
There is no contradiction between talking about evidence, concepts and hypotheses, and agendas and conspiracies. This is because science cannot be totally objective. Its methods are formulated and practiced by human beings who bring their own biases to the process, and it is illogical to expect them to be able to be completely objective. It's an impossibility for a human being because who we are, and how we think, is based largely on our personal experiences, loyalties, pre-existing beliefs, etc.
I don't disagree with you in saying that science is an excellent way of finding out about the world; and if we're measuring that which is detectable by the five senses, then it's one of the best ways. But it's also important to know where its limits and flaws can lie.
This is, finally, the topic. If I set out to debunk some claim of alternative medicine and instead run into strong supporting evidence then guess what? It ain't debunked, it's confirmed.
Is this anything more than a hypothetical example? And what do you classify as strong supporting evidence? I can't honestly remember what you said to me personally on the alt med thread where I talked a few months ago, but I know that when I provided positive studies and also evidence of how some negative studies had flaws, this was all summarily dismissed because of the view that the majority must be right. Basically, no matter how good the studies were that I presented, they were superseded in sheer volume by other kinds of studies. Surely an objective way to do science would be to look at any kind of anomalous evidence and start asking some questions about what it might tell us about current ways of thinking and understanding, and how we could learn from further studies.
I don't actually like the word "debunk." It carries several negative connotations. First is that instead of objectively looking at the evidence (see above), you are predetermining that it is "bunk" and that you are going to show everyone that it is so. Another negative connotation is lack of respect for the person making the claim, and again an immediate assumption that they are lying, mistaken or deluded. I don't see any of this as objective science. From having honestly listened to what creationists have said to me, I do see the occasional thought-provoking remark. I think one is guilty of black-and-white thinking to never truly listen to their debate opponent, or to dismiss everything they say as 100% total nonsense. What do I get for this view? Accusations that I'm about to become a creationist myself. Well, not unless the half-lives of radioactive elements suddenly decide to do a back-flip, or the fossil record decides to jumble itself up overnight.
You're beginning to sound like Russ, Percy: "Know yourself." People seem to toss this out when they are frustrated that someone else doesn't agree with their point of view. But it's important for everyone to do it, all the time. I work on it every day. I wouldn't come here to talk if I didn't want to. Goodness knows I'm never actually going to win a debate on your terms, so there's no other reason for me to hang around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 12-18-2007 2:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 12-19-2007 9:11 AM Kitsune 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