Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 104 of 318 (450018)
01-20-2008 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by pelican
01-20-2008 8:16 AM


Yes, I do require more.
Do not confuse lack of agreement with lack of understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by pelican, posted 01-20-2008 8:16 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 1:56 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 318 (450177)
01-21-2008 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by pelican
01-21-2008 1:44 AM


Re: ????????????????????????????????????
I don't care if you think I'm condecending.
I do not deny that I am coming right out and saying that Riverrat's command of the english language is inferior. It is so inferior that it gets in the way of clear communication.
Thank you for restating the OP so succinctly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 1:44 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 01-21-2008 9:11 AM nator has not replied
 Message 118 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 5:13 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 318 (450366)
01-21-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by pelican
01-21-2008 5:13 PM


Re: full of it
quote:
I don't care either, I don't have much to do with those of your superior attitude when you don't understand a goddamn thing about the effect you have on others. It's called EMPATHY. Did you study that in your fine education?
I have plenty of empathy.
What does that have to do with this thread, and the fact that it appears, as it does, on a science-based debate board?
quote:
What are you people trying to prove?
Please read the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 5:13 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 7:43 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 318 (450437)
01-21-2008 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by purpledawn
01-21-2008 6:03 PM


Re: Mulligan
quote:
I think it's rare for either side to admit error/mistake to the opposition.
How often does either side actually make errors, though?
If one side makes significantly fewer errors in reasoning and/or fact, then we wouldn't expect that side to "admit" to making many.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by purpledawn, posted 01-21-2008 6:03 PM purpledawn has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 142 of 318 (450439)
01-21-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by pelican
01-21-2008 6:38 PM


Re: shoe on the other foot
quote:
rahvin, we can only know what we know.
Er, no.
We can come to know more, and understand more, through the process of learning.
quote:
I am trying to bring to your awareness something that the intelligent mindset cannot comprehend. The mindset blocks certain information that does not fit the criteria.
So...someone intelligent is somehow not able to comprehend certain information?
Such as?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 6:38 PM pelican has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 318 (450445)
01-21-2008 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by purpledawn
01-21-2008 6:46 PM


Re: Don't Consent
quote:
Unfortunately, since this is a debate board and opposition is the name of the game, it is difficult to just be inquisitive without being pummeled.
Not at all.
Inquisitiveness, I like. I'll answer honest questions from someone who truly wants to learn all day long, and if I don't know the answer, I'm happy to say that I don't know. I'll do my best to politely correct someone's incorrect information, even if they don't ask a question but instead are just wrong.
I think that most science-minded folks here are pretty much the same.
(Molbiogirl and Crashfrog are sometimes too quick to turn sarcastic, I think)
What usually happens here, though, is the non-science-types are often so very wrong, or are sloppy thinkers, or are simply uninterested in learning anything that threatens their preferred beliefs that they simply give any polite efforts the big F.U. in one form or another.
Sometimes it takes the shape of an abusive temper tantrum, sometimes it is repetition of arguments instead of addressing rebuttals, sometimes it is playing dumb in order to avoid addressing rebuttals, sometimes it is being coy and playing word games to distract from the topic and bog down debate over terms or intent to avoid addressing rebuttals.
In other words, they trot out all forms of dishonest debate tactics.
Is the science-side immune? Of course not.
Is it far more common, and obvious amongst non-critical thinkers?
I think so.

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy
"What we need is not the will to believe but the will to find out." - Bertrand Russell
"Man's greatest asset is the unsettled mind." - Isaac Asimov
"We not only believe what we see, to some extent we see what we believe
...The implications of our beliefs are frightening." - Richard Gregory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by purpledawn, posted 01-21-2008 6:46 PM purpledawn has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 144 of 318 (450446)
01-21-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by pelican
01-21-2008 7:27 PM


Re: full of it
quote:
If I wasn't here you would be still debating how clever you are and how inferior others are compared to you without opposition. You all jsu nod and agree with each other. That's not a debate. That mass mentality.
Um, no.
We science-minded types disagree all the time, and correct each other all the time.
Of the top of my head, I have had at least one argument each with Percy, jar, Crashfrog, Holmes, Purpledawn, Rrhain, Archer, arachnophilia, brennakimi, CK, Taz, Catholic Scientist, Asgara, Jon, pink sasquatch, truthlover, Ben, and Subbie, all of whom are evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by pelican, posted 01-21-2008 7:27 PM pelican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by anglagard, posted 01-22-2008 1:52 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 175 of 318 (450679)
01-23-2008 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by anglagard
01-22-2008 1:52 AM


Well, alright.
quote:
Damn, can't I even get an honorable mention for tactical disagreements?
Sure, why not.
Honorable Mention awarded to: anglagard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by anglagard, posted 01-22-2008 1:52 AM anglagard has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 318 (450681)
01-23-2008 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by pelican
01-22-2008 4:33 AM


Re: Don't Consent
quote:
I doubt Eleanor Roosevelt ever experienced feeling inferior and yet it is taken as true.
It is well-known that Eleanor Roosevelt considered herself to be ugly. Her husband had an affair (and continued seeing the other woman for the rest of his life) with her own social secretary, which I'm sure rather damaged her feelings of self-worth as a woman.
source
So, doubt no longer, Chester.
The funny thing is, you could have done what I did before you posted a claim about Eleanor Roosevelt; looked at Eleanor Roosevelt's wiki page to make sure what you were claiming was supported by evidence.
Yet, you didn't do what took me about three minutes to do, and instead just made it easy for me to point out your sloppy mistake.
Why didn't you take the trouble to make sure what you were saying was true, or at least wasn't specifically and particularly contradicted?
I think this habit of fact-checking ourselves and making sure our arguments are actually correct and based in good quality, reliable evidence is the single biggest differentiator between the science-minded and the non-critical thinker.
I can't tell you the number of times I have not posted an argument or a claim because when I read up on it, I realized that I was wrong about it.
So, tell me, in your opinion, is the person who habitually fact checks themselves a person who is unable to learn, or is the person who never fact checks themselves the one with the greater ability to learn?
quote:
And who do you suppose is going to battle for those who cannot respond in enough of an academic way that you can understand, if not me?
Nobody is suggesting that we all write in an "academic manner".
I certainly don't write in anything close to an "academic manner".
I'd be delighted with everyone writing as though they got a B in 10th grade English.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by pelican, posted 01-22-2008 4:33 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 9:19 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 253 of 318 (450960)
01-25-2008 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by pelican
01-23-2008 9:19 PM


Re: Don't Consent
How is this any sort of reply to my post?
You haven't addressed anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by pelican, posted 01-23-2008 9:19 PM pelican has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 263 of 318 (451024)
01-25-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by pelican
01-25-2008 12:43 AM


Re: Creationist Craziness
quote:
Seriously, is this a real threat of the possibility of it being taught in schools?
Yes.
Creationists want religious non-science to be taught as though it were science, and there have been several attempts at enacting such educational policies which have ended up in front of the US Supreme Court because this violates the Constitution.
You know, the US is falling behind many other countries in science education, and the vocal and influential religious people who embrace ignorance when it contradicts their religious beliefs have been a large part of the reason for this. They get on school boards.
I mean, when our Republican Presidential candidates were asked to raise their hands when asked if they accepted the Theory of Evolution, several of them didn't.
That's the danger, Heinrik. That someone can get so far along the path to becoming the next President of the United States of America and yet can be so anti-science and ignorant.
Most of the country didn't bat an eye.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 12:43 AM pelican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by molbiogirl, posted 01-25-2008 6:10 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 264 of 318 (451025)
01-25-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by pelican
01-25-2008 2:29 AM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
quote:
Evolutionists cannot prove their case against creationists, as you rightly point out. Creationists cannot prove their case against evolutionists. Both are in the same position. It isn't about who is right and who is wrong because until their is some mutual understanding, this debate will see us all dead and still carry on.
Well, no, that's not true.
Science can certainly provide a strong evidence-based case against the Creationist's claims regarding the natural world. Furthermore, this case is built using methods which anyone, regardless of belief, can use. Scientific methodology works, in other words, regardless of if you believe it works or not.
Just because Creationists refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.
Just because Creationists refuse to admit their errors doesn't mean they haven't been demonstrated to be in error.
So, I disagree that this debate isn't about who is right and who is wrong.
It is about exactly that.
It is also about the correction of errors and intellectual honesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 2:29 AM pelican has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 276 of 318 (451202)
01-26-2008 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by pelican
01-25-2008 6:10 PM


Re: Not Quite
quote:
What if creationism was 50% true and evolution was 50% true?
What if Creationism was 100% false?
Guess what? It is 100% false.
quote:
Neither can totally prove or disprove their claims.
Of course, the claims of science and Biology are supported by a great deal of evidence from nature.
Creationism's claims are not. Period.
The only reason people believe Creationist claims is through religious convicion combined with ignorance of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by pelican, posted 01-25-2008 6:10 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by pelican, posted 01-26-2008 8:10 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 277 of 318 (451203)
01-26-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by tesla
01-25-2008 8:19 PM


Re: Not Quite
quote:
the point is, even if someone was to show people beyond all shadow of a doubt that God is, that Jesus died for you, and even produced scientific proof, and physical proof, it wouldn't matter, because unless they have released some of their dogmatic views of the world, no other view will suffice regardless.
That is not true at all.
If there was real, reliable scientific, physical proof of god, jesus, etc., of course I would accept the evidence, just like I accept any scientific explanation.
Of course, that means that the acceptance would be subject to revision if new evidence comes to light...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by tesla, posted 01-25-2008 8:19 PM tesla has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 278 of 318 (451209)
01-26-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Hill Billy
01-26-2008 2:56 PM


Re: Working At Improvement
quote:
Nator,as someone who has never even taken a reading comprehension exam (if I did I'm sure I failed miserably,) and as yet has had no trouble understanding Riverrat,I have a question. Wouldn't highly evolved and finely tuned comprehension skills allow one to comprehend even the most poorly written stuff?
No.
quote:
I mean whats so special about comprehending well written material? Perhaps a slightly less elevated nasal position might provide a clearer view of the screen which in turn might lead to greater comprehension.
I've asked for explanations, many times.
What I've usually gotten in reply is contentless, sarcastic one-liners.
What rat does quite often, I think, is this:
He will write something in an unprecise manner which expresses something he didn't mean to say, and then gets pissed off at everybody else for responding to what he wrote instead of what he didn't write but really meant to say.
Or, he really did mean to say exactly what he wrote, and then people completely demolish and shred his post to pieces, and then he comes back and tries to save face by saying something like, "That's not what I meant/said at all, and I can't believe all you people hate me for believing in God". This then requires him to make more word salad to try to twist out of what he said before.
Lastly, and perhaps the most bemusing behavior of all is when he appears to have written a meaning into a post that he later says he didn't intend, his respondants call him on it, yet he digs in his heels and begins defending the view he says he never meant to express!
That's my take, anyway, after a few years of debate with him.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 2:56 PM Hill Billy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 8:12 PM nator 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