Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary superiority
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 136 of 302 (453726)
02-03-2008 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hill Billy
02-03-2008 8:46 PM


Re: Two days for Hill Billy unless...
Tick tock.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : This note: 2 hour suspension for this "Tick tock" message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hill Billy, posted 02-03-2008 8:46 PM Hill Billy has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 137 of 302 (453731)
02-03-2008 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hill Billy
02-03-2008 8:46 PM


Re: Two days for Hill Billy unless...
hill billy writes:
In fact, to have any hope of making this determination one must first assume that their conclusions may be false. Only then can those conclusions be compared with alternatives.
Is this not the basis of science? In fact, is this not science itself?
Is not scientific thinking in fact,the assumption that all conclusions may be false?
Well you took the words right out of my mouth. I just couldn't think of it. ha ha Mind if I borrow it? regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hill Billy, posted 02-03-2008 8:46 PM Hill Billy has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 138 of 302 (453734)
02-03-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Hill Billy
02-03-2008 8:46 PM


Re: Two days for Hill Billy unless...
Can I point out that scientists always hold their conclusions to be falsifiable, but they don't actually reach those conclusions until they've carried out the experiments to either support or refute their hypothesis. Once they've done that, they publish their findings, including full methodology, and describe the conclusions they have drawn. This lets others replicate their findings.
Other scientists then read this. If the evidence presented validates the conclusions and the findings are replicated with the same methodology then other scientists will accept the conclusions on a tentative basis.
Science assumes all the time that conclusions may be false which is why the're always held tentatively - if new evidence comes along which shows the conclusions to be unjustified, then the conclusions are thrown out.
The people on the board are reporting findings which have already been through this process and which are still to be refuted. Most of the time the conclusions are not those of the posters themselves, but of science. They do want to hear about alternatives, but alternatives which have been through the same rigorous process as the conventional conclusions.
So, yes, to answer your question, this is what science is about and this is what is posted on this board, most of the time.
It's such a shame that you can't see it.
Would you like some?
Why don't you quit with the snidey insults? I personally don't respond well to them and neither does much of the human race.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Hill Billy, posted 02-03-2008 8:46 PM Hill Billy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Hill Billy, posted 02-04-2008 8:28 AM Trixie has replied

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 5354 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 139 of 302 (453735)
02-03-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Trixie
02-03-2008 10:08 AM


No garbage here.
Trixie.
why bother hanging around here?
might be answered with this.
There are many people on this board who go out of their way, take time to research things and draw upon their own experience to try to help people who want to learn something.
So, please, how do YOU know who's who?
How do You know who to trust?
Is it wise to trust someone who is absolutely certain their conclusions are true?

"Just cause what I say pisses you off does not mean that I said it just to piss you off." Me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2008 10:08 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2008 10:37 PM Hill Billy has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 140 of 302 (453741)
02-03-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Hill Billy
02-03-2008 10:18 PM


Re: No garbage here.
It's wise to trust someone who provides evidence to back up their conclusions. You see, that means that they are providing you with the same information that they used to come to their conclusions and allowing you to come to your own - they're not just saying "believe me cos I know what I'm talking about".
Then there are others who make sweeping assertions, provide no evidence to back them up and when asked for the evidence eg references which support them, they run a mile or change the subject.
I suggest you look at the E=mc2 thread. Have a look at the posts which go between Heinrik and Modulus. Now, can you tell whether Modulus is to be trusted or not?
If someone claims to be a molecular biologist and then demonstrates an astounding lack of knowledge of the subject it's not a good idea to trust their judgment on molecular matters. Neither is it a good idea to use people's qualifications to judge them, since some might have only just scraped a pass, however the number of people with the specific qualifiation AND who are crap is very small.
The final test is experience - experience of the poster. Once you've been around a while, you get to know those who know what they're talking about and those who spout so much marsh gas (by their fruits shall you know them).
However, in all circumstances, conversations tend to get off on the wrong foot when someone appears shouting the odds and criticising people they have no knowledge of.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt so far, which is more than you've done for me or anyone else on this board. Are you surprised that people are less than exceedingly polite in return? Oh, and see my previous post in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Hill Billy, posted 02-03-2008 10:18 PM Hill Billy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 11:04 PM Trixie has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 141 of 302 (453749)
02-03-2008 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Trixie
02-03-2008 10:37 PM


Re: No garbage here.
I suggest you look at the E=mc2 thread. Have a look at the posts which go between Heinrik and Modulus. Now, can you tell whether Modulus is to be trusted or not?
If someone claims to be a molecular biologist and then demonstrates an astounding lack of knowledge of the subject it's not a good idea to trust their judgment on molecular matters. Neither is it a good idea to use people's qualifications to judge them, since some might have only just scraped a pass, however the number of people with the specific qualifiation AND who are crap is very small.
Hi again, did I hear my name?
I will try to explain how these threads actually complement each other.
Hill Billy is trying to point out that lack of knowledge does not equal less value. He/she is experiencing the other end of a superior attitude.
I also am experiencing being on the other end of the stick in the "e=mc^2 thread. A self acknowledged uneducated (in this field) willing to learn regular Joe. Have a look at the superior attitude. Honestly, Trixie, you were talking to me as if my goldfish had just died. It reminded me of maggie thatcher, no offense intended. Bloody oranges? Ha ha ha
I'm sorry, but how am I supposed to take you seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2008 10:37 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Taz, posted 02-03-2008 11:14 PM pelican has replied
 Message 143 by Trixie, posted 02-04-2008 12:14 AM pelican has replied
 Message 154 by Larni, posted 02-04-2008 10:20 AM pelican has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 142 of 302 (453751)
02-03-2008 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by pelican
02-03-2008 11:04 PM


Re: No garbage here.
Heinrik writes:
Hill Billy is trying to point out that lack of knowledge does not equal less value.
Then you guys have been arguing against a strawman, because nobody has even remotely suggested that people who lack knowledge do not have less value as human beings than people who are more educated.
All we are saying is that the issue is one of common sense. Would you hire a certified engineer to design a bridge or would you hire any regular folk you pulled off the street?
He/she is experiencing the other end of a superior attitude.
I would say that the experience is purely delusional. Again, have you ever observed or heard of any particular person or persons holding a rally to push for a law that would increase in value of personhood of people who are more educated? Unfortunately, we don't see the same behavior, or lack of behavior, from the other end of the spectrum.
I also am experiencing being on the other end of the stick in the "e=mc^2 thread. A self acknowledged uneducated (in this field) willing to learn regular Joe. Have a look at the superior attitude. Honestly, Trixie, you were talking to me as if my goldfish had just died. It reminded me of maggie thatcher, no offense intended. Bloody oranges? Ha ha ha
I'm sorry, but how am I supposed to take you seriously?
There's no superior attitude there. You asked a question. Someone answered it. You asked it again. Someone answered it again. Apparently, this went on 31 times and you still don't understand the real implications and value of that equation. What you see in that thread is frustration coming from our end, not feelings of superiority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 11:04 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 4:32 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 148 by Hill Billy, posted 02-04-2008 8:49 AM Taz has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 143 of 302 (453763)
02-04-2008 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by pelican
02-03-2008 11:04 PM


Re: No garbage here.
Nice! What was it I was saying about manners?
Honestly, Trixie, you were talking to me as if my goldfish had just died. It reminded me of maggie thatcher, no offense intended. Bloody oranges? Ha ha ha
I'm sorry, but how am I supposed to take you seriously?
In case it escaped your attention I did post the following before wittering on about oranges
At the risk of oversimplifying (and please don't be offended, this is how I have to think all the time, especially when I'm doing calculations for dilution factors for various chemical solutions)
You just don't get it, do you? I have to think like that when I'm doing everyday calculations sometimes. If lack of knowledge meant you were of less value I would have made no attempt whatsoever to help. My superior attitude? Nope, just knowing what would work for me in your situation (more equivalent than superior I would have thought, but what do i know).You obviously feel my attempts to help were of such a low value that you feel free to laugh. Instead I just feel insulted.
I'll tell you what makes someone of less value in my books, shall I? Someone who can't even see that what I posted was nothing more than an attempt to help. Someone who can't see that I've been where you're coming from, even when it's spelled out to them in words of (admittedly) more than one syllable. Someone who ridicules those who have gone out of their way to assist.
I am astounded and highly amused that you think my explanation demonstrates a superior attitude because it was too simple, yet STILL didn't get it and went on to ask Modulus
Do the values of E and M remain constant?
.
It seems that maybe the "oranges" idea wasn't as simple as required.
Feel free to have another laugh at this point, because I'm ROTFFLMFAO and what I'm laughing at isn't your question, it's the fact that you claim the "oranges" were below your level, yet by your question have demonstrated that even that went over your head and plop! onto the wall. To save your blushes, I won't quote the full text of the "oranges" explanation.
Go back, read my posts on this matter and then come back here and tell me I deserved what you said or that I deserve your laughter and that I deserve not to be taken seriously.
Any superiority I feel now has nothing to do with intelligence or knowledge, nothing to do with education and everything to do with the fact that I'm not utterly obnoxious.
I have never been suspended from this board in the four years or so I've been here and I'm proud of that record. However, I think it's a worthwhile risk to take in this instance, since your behaviour has just about reached an all time low for the forum (and that's saying something, given some of the posters we've had).
I'm not going to get into a flame war with you, you're not really worth the effort. Suffice to say that I'll be staying far away from you from now on which I believe will be no great loss in your opinion and a f*%king great big gain in mine.
Oh and can I point out that Hill Billy, in attempting to point out that a lack of knowledge doesn't equal less value, is pointing out the bleeding obvious, However, given your response to the "oranges" I think you might still be hard-pressed to tell what anything equals
Nuff said. I'm off for another good laugh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 11:04 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 4:54 AM Trixie has not replied
 Message 146 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 5:44 AM Trixie has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 144 of 302 (453779)
02-04-2008 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Taz
02-03-2008 11:14 PM


Re: No garbage here.
There's no superior attitude there. You asked a question. Someone answered it. You asked it again. Someone answered it again. Apparently, this went on 31 times and you still don't understand the real implications and value of that equation. What you see in that thread is frustration coming from our end, not feelings of superiority.
well, there you go. Another misconception I hold as true. I really believed there was a superior attitude and that was the whole purpose of introducing a topic in which I knew I was out of my depth.
Can you prove to me that there isn't a superior attitude? I am struggling to get my head around this misconception you are trying to bring to my awareness. I really have evidence to the contrary but I'm more than willing to be proved wrong. If you can I will give you a big surprise. How's that for a deal? regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Taz, posted 02-03-2008 11:14 PM Taz has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 145 of 302 (453782)
02-04-2008 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Trixie
02-04-2008 12:14 AM


Re: No garbage here.
My superior attitude? Nope, just knowing what would work for me in your situation (more equivalent than superior I would have thought, but what do i know).You obviously feel my attempts to help were of such a low value that you feel free to laugh. Instead I just feel insulted.
Trixie, MY intelligence was insulted. I chose to laugh at it.
Never once have I thought you were using a superior attitude. How come you think that?
I believed you were very intelligent and articulate and kind. I was not laughing At you. I was laughing at your example. C'mon, trixie. At this point in the thread, I thought you would have given me more credit than that. It was light hearted and amusing.
I'm not going to get into a flame war with you, you're not really worth the effort. Suffice to say that I'll be staying far away from you from now on which I believe will be no great loss in your opinion and a f*%king great big gain in mine.
based on your opinion, I was wondering why you nominated me for post of the month?
I'm sure you have needed this platform to vent your feelings. Good on ya! The real Trixie has found her inner voice
I'm glad to be of service. regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Trixie, posted 02-04-2008 12:14 AM Trixie has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 146 of 302 (453784)
02-04-2008 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Trixie
02-04-2008 12:14 AM


Re: No garbage here.
Hill Billy is trying to point out that lack of knowledge does not equal less value. He/she is experiencing the other end of a superior attitude.
I also am experiencing being on the other end of the stick in the "e=mc^2 thread. A self acknowledged uneducated (in this field) willing to learn regular Joe. Have a look at the superior attitude. Honestly, Trixie, you were talking to me as if my goldfish had just died. It reminded me of maggie thatcher, no offense intended. Bloody oranges? Ha ha ha
I'm sorry, but how am I supposed to take you seriously?
After further investigation I see the error of misunderstanding here.
THE superior attitude I referred to was not yours peronally. They were separate issues meant to be spaced by a new paragraph. I aplogise for my grammatical error.
I genuinely meant 'no offense intended', but you took offense anyway.
Do you not think others were laughing at me with believing I needed an explanation that an 8yr old would understand? Do you have any idea what sort of predudice and false perceptions concerning my 'intelligence' come from this type of unintentional condescention?
I do not for one second believe that was your intention was to belittle me, but every action has a reaction. Scientists know this very well. In layman's terms in the real world it means there are consequences to your actions of which you are responsible.
These consequences are rarely considered on this forum. Rarely does anyone admit to a mistake or apologise sincerely. Every issue becomes a bone of contention and the dog fights continues.
I did not come here to fight. I was drawn into it so I stood my ground. It was not appreciated in many circles and the blood hounds were out. My blood was drawn at times and I felt incredibly hurt, so I had to retreat and tend my wounds. (Maybe you can relate to how you felt with my oranges comment?)
I have retaliated to a few with an equally ignorant, hurtful comment when I could have ripped their heads off, I was so angry. (Maybe this also you can relate to with my oranges comment?)
Welcome to my world, Trixie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Trixie, posted 02-04-2008 12:14 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 5354 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 147 of 302 (453791)
02-04-2008 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Trixie
02-03-2008 10:17 PM


Scientific thinkin eh?
Trixie
Can I point out that scientists always hold their conclusions to be falsifiable, but they don't actually reach those conclusions until they've carried out the experiments to either support or refute their hypothesis. Once they've done that, they publish their findings, including full methodology, and describe the conclusions they have drawn. This lets others replicate their findings.
If you were to say "most" scientists, we would be in complete agreement.
Most of the time the conclusions are not those of the posters themselves, but of science.
Um, isn't it people who draw conclusions? See,here's what I'm wonderin,can science really draw a conclusion if it is a kind of conclusion itself ? ( The conclusion that all conclusions may be false.)
They do want to hear about alternatives, but alternatives which have been through the same rigorous process as the conventional conclusions.
So, are you saying that some conclusions are in fact true? If they go through this rigorous process, that is?
Why don't you quit with the snidey insults? I personally don't respond well to them and neither does much of the human race.
I think if you were insulted by this remark,then you must place yourself among those who do not think scientifically. Is this correct? I mean thinking about science is not the same as scientifically thinkin.
Is it?

"Just cause what I say pisses you off does not mean that I said it just to piss you off." Me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Trixie, posted 02-03-2008 10:17 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Trixie, posted 02-04-2008 9:12 AM Hill Billy has replied

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 5354 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 148 of 302 (453795)
02-04-2008 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Taz
02-03-2008 11:14 PM


There's some garbage here.
All we are saying is that the issue is one of common sense.
Taz, you joker. If it was so common, sense that is, wouldn't it be ,um,
more common?
Would you hire a certified engineer to design a bridge or would you hire any regular folk you pulled off the street?
I'll try and make it simple.
A certified engineer is, in fact, just regular folk.
If you think the way I do.
Do you disagree?

"Just cause what I say pisses you off does not mean that I said it just to piss you off." Me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Taz, posted 02-03-2008 11:14 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Taz, posted 02-04-2008 8:54 AM Hill Billy has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 149 of 302 (453796)
02-04-2008 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Hill Billy
02-04-2008 8:49 AM


Re: There's some garbage here.
Hill Billy writes:
I'll try and make it simple.
A certified engineer is, in fact, just regular folk.
If you think the way I do.
Do you disagree?
I couldn't understand your answer. Are you saying you'd hire anybody off the street to design a bridge? Or are you saying everybody has an engineering degree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Hill Billy, posted 02-04-2008 8:49 AM Hill Billy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 150 of 302 (453798)
02-04-2008 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Hill Billy
02-02-2008 5:11 PM


Re: Dr.Eh?
Yes, I suppose.
It seems that judges and juries believed this fellow had " expertise."
I believe I read somewhere that your field is mathematics. Hope I got that right.
Now, you know exactly what qualifications you possess, thats clear, but how do I. Know that is.
While this forum remains anonymous, you don't.
You could ask me to do some maths, but I could get someone else to do it for me.
In real life it is possible to check these things. When someone claims to be an expert witness, they have to say what their qualifications are, and what papers they've published, and the opposition's lawyers should check that, because if you're a lawyer and you catch your opponent's expert witness perjuring himself, that's a good score.
I can't see why the guy you mention didn't get caught sooner ... I guess no system is foolproof.
My question is:
How do YOU know who to trust?
Cause, don't forget what Nator said: The only thing any of us have to go on here is what we read, you know.
Well, as I've pointed out, there are ways to judge the trustworthiness of individuals testifying to specific matters, though they are not foolproof.
It is easier to judge the trustworthiness of institutions. If chemists all tell me that table salt is sodium chloride, then I don't feel suspicious.
Why not? Well, nator said: "The only thing any of us have to go on here is what we read, you know." And this is true. If I wished to convince you that table salt was sodium chloride over the Internet, I could do no more than quote chemistry texts at you.
On the other hand, in real life, you could go and get some sodium and some chlorine, and see if it made salt, or you could replicate the experiments of Sir Humphrey Davy, or whatever.
Anyone who doesn't trust the experts always has the option of becoming one. So in order for the whole "salt = sodium chloride" thing to be a myth, you'd need everyone who took an amateur or professional interest in chemistry to enter into some huge, pointless conspiracy.
So I find such statements trustworty; and, conversely, if someone was to base a creationist argument on the proposition that table salt was, in fact, potassium fluoride, then I should be inclined to take any other statements he made about chemistry ... with a pinch of salt.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Hill Billy, posted 02-02-2008 5:11 PM Hill Billy 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