Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 5:01 PM
26 online now:
Coragyps, edge, PaulK (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   False dilemma/'created dilemma'
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 16 of 26 (505444)
04-11-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ImagesandWords
04-11-2009 4:40 PM


Re: Second reply to 'Straggler'
Your posting style is somewhat difficult to respond to in a strictly logistical sense. A single block of text that includes no indication of the individual points you are addressing is not helpful. Have a click of the 'peek' button on better formatted messages to see how others format their posts.

While I do see some merit in your response I think you are capitulating somewhat on your first point. The language you use belies this.

Then I feel that you are attributing me with a position that you would rather I had in place of the position that I actually do hold. If clarification of my position is required just ask.

BUT my key point holds. Prediction and verification of newly discovered physical phenomenon will weed out those erroneous theories derived from subjective desire and belief as false and promote those theories that are true regardless of our beliefs, desires, wishes or world view bias.

The test of nature is objective and ruthless. That is why it is so key to the scientific method.

The thrust of my argument on this point is this; When some of those within the scientific community, especially those who are well-known or esteemed, even if temporarily, for whatever reason, advance and/or advocate a position that has no REAL, OBJECTIVE basis (The myth behind man-made global warming for example) in scientific fact, the damage is done to the rest of society, the common man.

Man made climate change is not the topic here. We can discuss that in an appropraite thread if you so wish.

However the test of theory against the reality of nature by means of prediction and verification remains the gold standard measure of any truly scientific theory. Evolution and the BB have passed these tests multiple times with flying colours.

Can you say the same about whatever theories it is you are advocating?

However, in your zeal to make your point you have overlooked the fact that without philosophy and logic, science would be nothing more than mere voodoo, religion, the very thing science does not want nor should be. You have inverted this relationship so, yes, philosophy can and does claim just as much, if not more pratical success, even if it is achieved vicariously.

Nobody is disputing the role of logic, and thus philosophy of sorts, in science but without the test of nature as it's basis investigation of the natural world amounts to little more than voodoo with intellectual knobs on. A form of rationalised wishful thinking if you will.

In strictly practical terms rationalism has been found to be an inferior method of investigation as compared to empirically evidenced conclusions tested against objective reality.

Look at what I said. I am not using God in a theological, religious sense to promote theology or religion. Here I am using God as a mere philosophical concept or perhaps a theoretical entity needed in some sort of an explanation

On what basis is this "god" explanation scientifically, or even logically, valid or justified?

Lastly, I am not here addressing creationism in any of its forms. However, to use the term 'evolution' in its broadest sense to portray some sort of high achievement is misleading. "Macro-evolution" has plenty of difficulties to deal with. I have no problem with 'micro-evolution' on the level of, say, viruses.

Science is not about proof it is about superiority of theory.

Whatever theory it is you are advocating needs to be able to match the established and demonstrable predictive and discovery power of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

If you are unable to do this then your theory must be deemed inferior, your position untenable, and whether you realise it or not, your argument refuted.

So, tell me, whatever theory it is that you are proposing - What predictions has it made and what discoveries have resulted?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 4:40 PM ImagesandWords has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 5:26 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 21 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 5:45 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 17 of 26 (505445)
04-11-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rrhain
04-11-2009 4:39 PM


Response
You have created a straw man for an argument. I did mention my belief in a global flood anywhere in this forum. As a matter of fact I did not state my position at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 4:39 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 5:24 PM ImagesandWords has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2009 6:49 PM ImagesandWords has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 26 (505446)
04-11-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ImagesandWords
04-11-2009 4:48 PM


Re: Response
Besides, if that is his real image beside his response, he looks old enough to me to speak up for himself.

Erm Onifre's avatar is an image of the famous but now deceased comedian Bill Hicks.

Onifre is probably of similar age to that which the picture suggests and is no doubt perfectly capable of speaking for himself (he is himself a professional comedian and a regular EvC contributor) but I thought I should let you know that the avatar is not him.......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 4:48 PM ImagesandWords has not yet responded

  
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 19 of 26 (505447)
04-11-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ImagesandWords
04-11-2009 5:22 PM


Re: Response
Self-correction. I meant to say that I didn't mention my belief.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 5:22 PM ImagesandWords has not yet responded

    
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 20 of 26 (505448)
04-11-2009 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
04-11-2009 5:19 PM


Re: Second reply to 'Straggler'
Thank you for the insight on how to better format my responses. I am new to this venue.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 5:19 PM Straggler has not yet responded

    
ImagesandWords
Junior Member (Idle past 3545 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 04-11-2009


Message 21 of 26 (505449)
04-11-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
04-11-2009 5:19 PM


Recess
'Straggler'. I have to exit this forum temporarily. However, I will continue as soon as possible to address your last couple of questions. I am not so sure we are on different pages on some of the issues. I would like to say that your style of discussion is refreshing; Matter-of-fact, straightforward with no fluff and, judging by the tone of your responses, non-antagonistic. This is commendable in an environment such as this. I look forward to more discussion with you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2009 5:19 PM Straggler has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 22 of 26 (505450)
04-11-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ImagesandWords
04-11-2009 4:48 PM


ImagesandWords responds to me:

Well, no...no, he doesn't. He just makes a lot of blather without actually explaining anything. Let's try it on him and see if he figures it out:

I am pretty sure that for whatever reason, you completely missed the point of my response to you. If you really are as clever as you think you are, then you should be bright enough to go back and look more closely at his response; to read exactly what it is he said and draw some other conclusions. Look through his eyes rather than assuming you made yourself clear.

Now, did anything I say help you to understand onifre's post?

No?

Then what makes you think anything you said would help onifre to understand yours? You didn't add anything new. You provided no analysis, no clarifications, no restatements. All you said was, "Reread it."

That isn't helpful. Is there any reason for us not to come to the conclusion that you're a troll?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 4:48 PM ImagesandWords has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 23 of 26 (505451)
04-11-2009 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ImagesandWords
04-11-2009 4:40 PM


ImagesandWords writes:

quote:
When some of those within the scientific community, especially those who are well-known or esteemed, even if temporarily, for whatever reason, advance and/or advocate a position that has no REAL, OBJECTIVE basis (The myth behind man-made global warming for example) in scientific fact

[emphasis added]

And with this, we can write you off as a crank.

There is no controversy regarding climate change and the fact that it is primarily being driven by human activity. There are mountains of evidence supporting it. In the meta-analysis of the data examining the papers that have been published regarding climate change of the last decade, there wasn't any study that came to a conclusion other than climate change was real and that humans were the cause.

So it's time for you to answer your own questions:

Are you really looking for an answer or are you trying to "win" a "culture war"?

Is this question a true intellectual barrier for you or is there prejudice and bias on your part?

quote:
Incidently, it is no secret that many scientists must constantly seek out funding for their research or it 'dies', so the pressure to produce tangible results must be enormous and human nature being what it is, I suppose the lure of a seemingly endless supply of research money, in whatever form, is overwhelmingly tempting.

Indeed, but you know what brings in even more funding? Proving other people wrong. When you can overturn the dominant paradigm in a field, amazing things happen: You win the Nobel Prize. Research labs start beating down your door to beg you to join them.

You seem to be about to say that there is some sort of Vast Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C). To use your own words, you need to re-think. The most spectacular findings in science often come when we have to throw everything we thought we knew away because we were wrong.

Do you have evidence that current science is wrong? Actual tests that can be conducted that result in data that contradicts what current theory predicts? Then why haven't you published? The Nobel Prize is worth a million dollars. Why are you holding back?

quote:
"Macro-evolution" has plenty of difficulties to deal with.

As noted above, with this, we can write you off as a crank. There are no "difficulties" with "macro-evolution." The evidence is there if only you would step away from the computer and do some actual work in the field.

When was the last time you were in a science library?
When was the last time you read a scientific journal?
When was the last time you were in a laboratory doing an experiment?

Macroevolution: Its Definition, Philosophy and History
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

[And as a helpful hint: Please try to break your posts up into paragraphs. Dense text where points are not separated from each other is hard to read.]


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 4:40 PM ImagesandWords has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 26 (505453)
04-11-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ImagesandWords
04-11-2009 5:22 PM


ImagesandWords responds to me:

quote:
You have created a straw man for an argument. I did mention my belief in a global flood anywhere in this forum. As a matter of fact I did not state my position at all.

With all due respect, I am sure you are a bright man. However, I think you have sought out an easy answer to the question. While this is perfectly understandable, and more common than what is desirable, I suggest you re-read the question and re-think your answer; even if it takes an extended period of time.

There, was that helpful? Did you actually learn anything new about what I was trying to say? Anything to assist you in understanding what my point was?

No?

Has that taught you anything?

Here, let me show you what a real response looks like:

Yes, I know you didn't say anything about a global flood. I wasn't ascribing such a belief to you. As I specifically said, this is a "common example." This doesn't mean I think you believe it. It is just a common claim that certain people make in reference to their theology. They seem to be of the opinion that if there was no global flood, then that means god does not exist.

Would you have been happier if I had used the sun going around the earth? That is a clear example of what I mean. People were of the opinion that the grand design of god put the earth at the center of the universe. To claim otherwise was literal blasphemy. Their conception of god required that the earth be physically located in the center of the universe.

And yet, nobody seems to have this problem these days. They came to the realization that no, the existence of god is not dependent upon earth being in the center of everything. They had a conception of god that depended upon a physical trait being the case and when that was shown to be incorrect, they changed their conception of god.

Is it possible that the problem is not science but rather your understanding of god? Might it not be possible that god does exist but not in the way you think? That god does reveal himself but that you have erred in that revelation?

Is it not possible that you're simply wrong?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 5:22 PM ImagesandWords has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 25 of 26 (505454)
04-11-2009 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ImagesandWords
04-11-2009 10:04 AM


Bad first date, lets try again...
So you didn't like my answers? Ok, but why, just because?

I have re-read my answers and re-read your questions, where's the problem?

With all due respect, I am sure you are a bright man. However, I think you have sought out an easy answer to the question.

IW, let's see if I have fully understood your question:

IW writes:

Is there REALLY a dilemma between a cosmology and worldview of a monotheistic, creator God who possesses the ability to reveal Himself to us and the world of 'science' and origin?

It seems like there could only be 2 answers for this question, Yes or No.

"Is there really a dilemma.....?" - My answer again, NO.

But, without anyting further, my "no" answer would be kinda vague, so I followed with a statement to qualify my position:

Oni writes:

The only dilemma occurs when people try to replace tried and tested theories, which perfectly explain a phenomenon, with their own individual worldview(WV) without any proper evidence to support their (WV), other than faith in it.

Theology is cool. Belief in whatever one wishes is fine. However, the rejection of science because of one of these beliefs, in my opinion, seems like a very stupid thing to do.

You also asked:

IW writes:

Or, is this 'dilemma' something we as human beings have 'created' through faulty reasoning and analysis and a very, very strong desire to advance our own causes, whatever they may be?

Again, seems like a Yes or No answer.

To which I responded:

Yes.

Then qualified that answer with a descriptive reason why:

Oni writes:

the dilemma is created by humans, humans with religious beliefs.

If creationist learned science a huge veil would be lifted in front of their face expossing the true nature of our world to them. This, I think, would be a huge benefit to both them and our society in general. There is no need for their constant nonsense about evolution and the Big Bang, or whatever else the have a problem with. It really is annoying, but fun to debate, so I guess a part of me doesn't want to see them totally go away. I would be bored not arguing with them.

So, with all do respect, I believe I not only addressed your question but qualified my position with a clear and descriptive statement.

If you feel it was an "easy" answer then explain why, don't send me back to redue my homework.

While this is perfectly understandable, and more common than what is desirable, I suggest you re-read the question and re-think your answer

You asked 2 questions, "Is there a dilemma", and "Is it created by humans"...

Both are simple Yes or No questions.

Perhaps you could bring up some dilemmas of your own and we could see if the dilemma is a science related dilemma or a theological dilemma.

Until then, you've simply asked 2 questions, to which I gave answers and a statment to back up that answer and you have given no position of your own.

So maybe you should re-read my answers, show me where my mistakes are, and establish your position.

Feel free to take an extended period of time. ;)

You then asked this final question:

IW writes:

Are we REALLY looking for answers or are we looking to 'win' a battle within the larger culture war?

My answer:

Oni writes:

Scientists are working as honestly as they can to answer questions about our natural world. Culture wars are irrelevant to their work.

Seems like a clear and to-the-point enough answer, where do you see a problem with it?

Do you feel there are deceptive scientist out there trying to con us about something? Ok - Then explain where and how they are being deceptive.

Just present your issue/dilemmas/problems and give us something to debate you on.


  • Where do you see a dilemma?

  • Which side do you feel is being hard to work with?

  • Which side do you feel is being deceptive?

Just say what you have to say, and we'll go from there.

IW writes:

Besides, if that is his real image beside his response,

As Straggler pointed out, that's the late, great Bill Hicks. I should be so lucky.

Even though his old girlfriend/manager and I are now great friends. ;)


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 10:04 AM ImagesandWords has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16087
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 26 (505641)
04-14-2009 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ImagesandWords
04-11-2009 8:40 AM


On the one hand, there's no conflict between theism and science.

On the other hand, there is a conflict between science and sects that incorporate antiscientific nonsense into their dogmas.

In a sense, this conflict is "manufactured", in that there is nothing in theism that makes anyone obliged to talk rubbish about science.

But it is not "false": the conflict between science and, for example, Young-Earthism, is perfectly genuine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ImagesandWords, posted 04-11-2009 8:40 AM ImagesandWords has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019