Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 2:07 PM
169 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (10 members, 159 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,580 Year: 2,617/19,786 Month: 699/1,918 Week: 287/266 Day: 24/35 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Honest Debate: how do you read?
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 31 of 49 (541831)
01-06-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Blue Jay
01-06-2010 1:57 PM


Re: on reading to refute
Hi Bluejay,

quote:
Is emotional belief a good thing to have?

For me, yes. When my 'head' says something and my 'heart' says something else then I am uncomfortable. If the two are aligned I feel much better.

Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2010 1:57 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2010 2:13 PM Peepul has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 32 of 49 (541835)
01-06-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peepul
01-06-2010 2:00 PM


Re: on reading to refute
Hi, Peepul.

Peepul writes:

When my 'head' says something and my 'heart' says something else then I am uncomfortable. If the two are aligned I feel much better.

Oh.

Personally, I just never feel at ease about anything, and don't particularly feel like I should, so it strikes me as odd when somebody else craves it.

I think that feeling of discomfort is good, though: that's what drives somebody to go and find answers, as you've illustrated.

The really concerning thing for me is when you run into people who feel like they have found the answers. Usually, what follows is the impression that no more corroboration is necessary, and that no new information will change the results. That's where the confirmation bias sneaks in and gets uncautious folks to rail on any point made by any creationist, just because one already "knows" that organisms evolve.

I've caught myself doing exactly that on a couple of occasions.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peepul, posted 01-06-2010 2:00 PM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Peepul, posted 01-06-2010 2:16 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2010 5:58 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 33 of 49 (541839)
01-06-2010 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Blue Jay
01-06-2010 2:13 PM


Re: on reading to refute
quote:
The really concerning thing for me is when you run into people who feel like they have found the answers. Usually, what follows is the impression that no more corroboration is necessary, and that no new information will change the results. That's where the confirmation bias sneaks in and gets uncautious folks to rail on any point made by any creationist, just because one already "knows" that organisms evolve.

Yes, that definitely is a risk.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2010 2:13 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 34 of 49 (541895)
01-06-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Blue Jay
01-06-2010 2:13 PM


Methods Evidence and Assumptions
Personally, I just never feel at ease about anything, and don't particularly feel like I should, so it strikes me as odd when somebody else craves it.

Discomfort is good for you. But I am not sure that most actively crave it as such. So I think you are the exception rather than the rule in this respect. But I mean that in the most admiring (without meaning to be at all condescending) of ways.

I think that feeling of discomfort is good, though: that's what drives somebody to go and find answers, as you've illustrated.

Yeah exactly and (admittedly somewhat idealistically) I think anyone who regularly participates at places like EvC is to be commended for seeking out alternative opinions and arguments rather than sitting there patting themselves on the back for being so self-congratulatory correct about everything they believe. Even the most ardent and stubborn could easily just blind themselves to the alternatives rather than seek them out.

Whatever I think of the views of those like ICANT or Buz, and even the stubbornness of their views, I think they have to be commended and respected in some way for putting themselves in the firing line. Rather than just logging onto places where they will be universally applauded. These guys consistently take some serious shit and keep coming back for more. Masochistic? Maybe.

But like I say I have something of an idealistic view about these things.......

That's where the confirmation bias sneaks in and gets uncautious folks to rail on any point made by any creationist, just because one already "knows" that organisms evolve.

I've caught myself doing exactly that on a couple of occasions

Yeah OK. We all have done that I suspect. But isn't this about more than just the direct argument at hand? Doesn't it ultimately boil down to the approach one takes to the nature of evidence and the belief one has in the scientific method as superior to other methods that are all too often proposed by "evidence" based believers (of all varities)?

We may get lazy in our specific arguments in specific threads on specific and highly deatiled topics. But if we really analyse it to the root isn't that what this stuff is all about? Evidence. Rationality. Knowledge. Belief. Faith. Yeah in a debate you get slack and assume that the evo answer is superior and that the mad creationists are just obviously wrong - But isn't that because fundamentally you know that the two methodologies and epystomologies being used are so massively unequal in terms of reliability and practical result?

Do not all the theistic arguments here ultimately boil down to the empirical methods of science Vs whatever is being proposed by the particular "evidence" based believer in question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2010 2:13 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2010 11:21 AM Straggler has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 35 of 49 (541914)
01-06-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peepul
01-06-2010 1:24 PM


Re: on reading to refute - does this lead to confirmation bias?
Hi Peepul,

I learned something about whale evolution. But also I made a connection in my own brain between two lines of evidence that supported each other in a way I hadn't previously seen.
...
But with whales, the morphology of whales is radically different from that of the common ancestor. We should NOT therefore expect the a creator would give them similar genetics to ungulates. But this is what we actually find. The fossil record and the genetics line up in this unexpected way.

Excellent point, but I'm still not sure how "reading to refute" is what is necessary to get you here (although I'm sure Phil Gingerich would be pleased).

So for me, this was an 'Aha' moment - this is really good evidence in favour of ToE and against creation and helped increase my emotional belief in ToE.

In other words, you found confirmation evidence and it made you feel comfortable with the results?

This is what worries me about focusing on the refutation rather than the understanding, that you can fall prey to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance and, perhaps, miss some nuanced point that you may not have agreed with originally.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peepul, posted 01-06-2010 1:24 PM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Peepul, posted 01-07-2010 6:42 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 01-07-2010 2:09 PM RAZD has responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 36 of 49 (541978)
01-07-2010 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
01-06-2010 7:10 PM


Re: on reading to refute - does this lead to confirmation bias?
quote:
Excellent point, but I'm still not sure how "reading to refute" is what is necessary to get you here (although I'm sure Phil Gingerich would be pleased).

It isn't necessary - it's just the approach I took.

quote:
In other words, you found confirmation evidence and it made you feel comfortable with the results?

That's right. It helped me shift my emotional belief towards accepting that actually, this might be real, and reduced conflict between what I think I 'should' believe and what I actually believe.

quote:
This is what worries me about focusing on the refutation rather than the understanding, that you can fall prey to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance and, perhaps, miss some nuanced point that you may not have agreed with originally.

I'm suffering severe cognitive dissonance all the time and I'm trying to reduce it! I'm hoping that with increased knowledge and a confidence that the evidence is very good, I become more open to genuine challenges. So far, that does appear to be the case, but I do agree that there is a risk of overlooking something valid and important in an opponents argument with this approach.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2010 7:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2010 8:02 PM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 37 of 49 (542050)
01-07-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
01-06-2010 5:58 PM


Re: Methods Evidence and Assumptions
Hi, Straggler.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't want to talk about evidence on a thread where both you and RAZD are participating.

Straggler writes:

Discomfort is good for you. But I am not sure that most actively crave it as such.

Okay, well, I don't really crave it... it's just the nature of the beast. I'm always skeptical of things that "feel good," because of events in my personal life. The primary means of discerning truth for Mormons is opening one's heart to feelings and promptings from the spirit. Therefore, truth always feels right to a sincere searcher.

However, with a diagnosed psychological disorder, and growing evidence that, if I went to a psychiatrist today, I might very well be diagnosed with something even more severe... it becomes rather clear that "feeling good" is probably not a methodology I should trust.

So, I don't actively seek out a "good feeling" about things anymore, and am very reluctant to trust it even when I do "feel good" about something.

-----

Straggler writes:

But isn't this about more than just the direct argument at hand?

Well, maybe it is. But, approaching debates that way generally leads to fixation on perceived ulterior motives, and evidence and logic are given a back seat, regardless of whether you're an evolutionist or creationist.

-----

Straggler writes:

Yeah in a debate you get slack and assume that the evo answer is superior and that the mad creationists are just obviously wrong - But isn't that because fundamentally you know that the two methodologies and epystomologies being used are so massively unequal in terms of reliability and practical result?

I'm actually going to disagree on this.

If I'm arguing for evolution because I "know," fundamentally, that evolution is based on a better methodology, then I'm not really using the methodology that I deem superior, am I?

The only way to show its superiority is to use it. And, that means addressing each argument methodologically, rather than lumping it all into a bundle of ulterior motives based on association.

-----

Straggler writes:

Do not all the theistic arguments here ultimately boil down to the empirical methods of science Vs whatever is being proposed by the particular "evidence" based believer in question?

Well, maybe so. But, I wasn't restricting myself to theistic arguments. You don't have to accept the entire worldview to acknowledge that there are some good points being made by creationists.

For example, here is the beginning of an argument about a bacteria antibody-immunity experiment. Peg correctly points out that we cannot ascertain whether the emergence of immunity is due to a new mutation or to changing allele frequency, because we simply cannot know for certain which bacterial genotypes went into founding the colony.

This does not require me to accept that God created the earth and several to many distinct "kinds" of animals in just six days 6000 years ago, but that doesn't mean we were justified in continuing to beat on Peg and insist that her argument was wrong.

Unwillingness to give an inch, to accept that a creationist might have actually been right about even a minor, insignificant point such as that, turned us from logical, science-minded individuals into anti-creationist zealots with an axe to grind.

I daresay that we are not as pure in our methodology and epistemology as we describe ourselves to creationists. And, "knowing" that, deep down, our side of the debate is based on something superior is frankly a moot point if we're not constantly applying that superior methodology in everything we argue.

Remember, that's what we accuse the creationists of doing! They "know" that, deep down, their side of the debate is based on something superior, even if they can't make the connections on their own, so they doggedly push on, refusing to give an inch.

My assessment is that most evolutionists are essentially the same way. I think I'm that way, and nothing upsets me more than that.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2010 5:58 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 01-07-2010 1:36 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 38 of 49 (542067)
01-07-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Blue Jay
01-07-2010 11:21 AM


Re: Methods Evidence and Assumptions
Heavy stuff.

I daresay that we are not as pure in our methodology and epistemology as we describe ourselves to creationists. And, "knowing" that, deep down, our side of the debate is based on something superior is frankly a moot point if we're not constantly applying that superior methodology in everything we argue.

You are right. I wasn't really saying that such behaviour is justified in the context of any individual debate. I was more saying that it is the underlying reason why us evos might take the slacker approach in practise at times. Maybe without even consciously doing so we are assuming that the methods of science speak for themselves. But what you say here puts paid to simply asserting that as a reasonable approach in any given specific evidence based argument. I accept that.

"My conclusion is scientific your is not" - Is not an adequate response even if we are all tempted to effectively say that to creos at times.

If I'm arguing for evolution because I "know," fundamentally, that evolution is based on a better methodology, then I'm not really using the methodology that I deem superior, am I?

The only way to show its superiority is to use it.

Well yes. And no. It isn't like there is not a respective track record of success and failure to refer to. But you are right that simply relying on an existing track record is ultimately unjustifiable even if in practise it is sometimes inevitably going to happen. Consciously or otherwise.

Remember, that's what we accuse the creationists of doing! They "know" that, deep down, their side of the debate is based on something superior, even if they can't make the connections on their own, so they doggedly push on, refusing to give an inch.

I'm not sure anyone on the evo side would say that they refuse to give an inch on principle. Nor do I think this is about just "knowing" that scientific evidence and conclusions are superior in the way you seem to be implying.

The scientific method in it's broadest sense is used by all of us all of the time in our everyday lives to make the most reliable conclusions about the real world possible. If your car won't start you don't sit there and subjectively dwell on how you feel about the concept of cars to find an answer to this problem. You don't interpret bits of ancient poetic texts in order to find metaphorical inspiration and hope that the car will just fix itself by magic. No - You apply what you know about cars (or seek what others have discovered by means of evidence and reason) to come up with a best guess answer and then work out how that can be tested then you test it and eliminate certain possibilities. In this manner we narrow in on the problem and eventualy (hopefully) the answer. On the basis of reason and physical evidence. A broken car is an obvious example. But we all do it for everything all of the time. It is how we all continually and unthinkingly interract with the external world around us. The best route home from work. The best way to cook spaghetti. The most reliable way to stay warm in the cold. Whatever.

What I am trying to say is that conclusions based on physical evidence and reason are not the exclusive domain of science. It isn't a question of just "knowing" (as you put it) that evolution is superior because it is labelled as "science" and poo pooing all else on some sort of baseless world view point of principle. Rather it is a question of "knowing" from continual and repeated and ongoing interraction with reality that physical evidence and reason are the best practical ways of making reliable conclusions. If on the basis of that we accept some forms of knowledge and some specific conclusions as superior (i.e. those that meet the criteria of being based on physical evidence and reason - especially if formalised for maximum effect) rather than those that are made on the basis of some other method of "knowing".. Well I think that is wholly justified. If someone starts making equally or even more demonstrably reliable conclusions on the basis of some other methodology then I am sure it wil catch on rather quickly.

True - We can be accused of taking the word of experts rather than examining all the evidence for ourselves. Maybe not all the things we are assuming are so obviously scientifically evidenced are as physically evidenced as we might be assuming. But from a practical point of view this is again inevitable.

But whatever the case the belief that scientific conclusions based on the formalisation of physical evidence and reason are superior is not just a case of unjustifiably "knowing" that our methods are better as you imply. It is based on everything we all experience all of the time.

My assessment is that most evolutionists are essentially the same way. I think I'm that way, and nothing upsets me more than that.

I think you are being hard on yourself. And others. And I think you are missing why exactly it is that we think physical evidence combined with logic and reason is the best means of drawing demonstrably reliable conclusions.

We don't just "know" this. We experience it. All of us. All of the time.

And, "knowing" that, deep down, our side of the debate is based on something superior is frankly a moot point if we're not constantly applying that superior methodology in everything we argue

The only way to show its superiority is to use it.

I guess my argument boils down to the fact that we are using it.

Constantly.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2010 11:21 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2010 10:20 PM Straggler has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 39 of 49 (542073)
01-07-2010 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
01-06-2010 7:10 PM


Re: on reading to refute - does this lead to confirmation bias?
RAZD writes:

This is what worries me about focusing on the refutation rather than the understanding, that you can fall prey to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance and, perhaps, miss some nuanced point that you may not have agreed with originally.


But I'm not sure confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance can be avoided. One can never begin a research completely neutral on the subject. We all have past experience. And we all have our own common sense. Combined the two, we will always have a little bit of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

Case in point. Yesterday, I was hit with the news that exposure to cell phone radiation could be beneficial instead of harmful. Even the researchers themselves admitted that when they first began this research they all believed that the result will confirm what the rest of us have been suspecting for years now, that cell phone EM radiation is harmful if received in regular doses. This research blew this belief out of the water.

Of course, more research will have to be conducted before this form of treatment for Alzheimer's could become a possibility. But now that we have a direction to go, I'm sure everyone is hopeful.

My point is even researchers begin their research with a kind of confirmation bias. The best any of us could do to avoid allowing CB and CD to take control of our lives is be aware that these things exist and always double check ourselves when presented with new facts.


Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

The thread about this map can be found here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2010 7:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2010 9:25 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 40 of 49 (542133)
01-07-2010 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peepul
01-07-2010 6:42 AM


Re: on reading to refute - does this lead to confirmation bias?
Hi again Peepul,

I'm suffering severe cognitive dissonance all the time and I'm trying to reduce it! I'm hoping that with increased knowledge and a confidence that the evidence is very good, I become more open to genuine challenges. So far, that does appear to be the case, but I do agree that there is a risk of overlooking something valid and important in an opponents argument with this approach.

This is also a valid approach - to seek out your sources of cognitive dissonance and see what the evidence shows to be valid resolution of the conflict/s.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peepul, posted 01-07-2010 6:42 AM Peepul has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 41 of 49 (542149)
01-07-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Straggler
01-07-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Methods Evidence and Assumptions
Hi, Straggler.

Straggler writes:

Heavy stuff.

I thought I told you not to call me that.

-----

Straggler writes:

Nor do I think this is about just "knowing" that scientific evidence and conclusions are superior in the way you seem to be implying.

I thought that was what you were implying.

-----

Straggler writes:

I'm not sure anyone on the evo side would say that they refuse to give an inch on principle.

Of course they wouldn't say it. That doesn't mean we don't do it, though.

-----

Straggler writes:

True - We can be accused of taking the word of experts rather than examining all the evidence for ourselves. Maybe not all the things we are assuming are so obviously scientifically evidenced are as physically evidenced as we might be assuming. But from a practical point of view this is again inevitable.

I agree: it's inevitable that we won't be presenting original research and may overstate others' results.

But, my problem is that we don't generally acknowledge this. We certainly spend a great deal of time acknowledging that creationists have this problem, though.

-----

Straggler writes:

Bluejay writes:

The only way to show its superiority is to use it.

I guess my argument boils down to the fact that we are using it.

Constantly.

I think you're overstating that.

But, regardless, I think creationists are using it in the everyday sense, too. So, I don't really think this is much of a point, to be honest.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 01-07-2010 1:36 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2010 9:27 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 42 of 49 (542199)
01-08-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Blue Jay
01-07-2010 10:20 PM


Re: Methods Evidence and Assumptions
Strag writes:

Nor do I think this is about just "knowing" that scientific evidence and conclusions are superior in the way you seem to be implying.

I thought that was what you were implying.

Not exactly.

I agree with you that simply asserting that "My evidence is scientific and yours is not" in a debate about a specific question (e.g. the age of the Earth or whatever) is neither helpful nor justfied (even if true). I also agree that this is done by us evos when debating IDists and creationists. I even agree that some of us do this all too often. Myself very much included.

But I don't think we just know that arguments and conclusions derived from physical evidence and logic are superior and more reliable in the same way that they "just know" that the bible is literally true (for example).

A "belief" in the validity of the scientific method is based on more than that. And indeed this "belief" is held to some extent by all of us implicitly and largely unconsciously. The problems arise when the conclusions of this form of thinking don't match the beliefs of the individual. And that applies to all of us (although creationism is a rather obvious example).

Of course they wouldn't say it. That doesn't mean we don't do it, though.

Agreed. And your linked to example did show this. I agree with that also.

But the difference I think is that all of the pro-science contingent here would at least go so far as to say that they should look at the evidence and derive the conclusion from that. Whilst when I have asked the ID/creo/etc. contingent whether what they believe is based on evidence, or faith regardless of evidence the results are "mixed" to put it politely. Muddled might be a more accurate term.

But I am certainly not arguing that us evos all meet this ideal in practise. Just that we recognise it. Which is a start.

I agree: it's inevitable that we won't be presenting original research and may overstate others' results.

But, my problem is that we don't generally acknowledge this.

OK. Fair point. I guess that is the nature of confrontational debate. Admittting that you don't know what you are talking about to the extent you would like to portray yourself as doing just isn't the done thing. But are we really fooling anyone with this or actually hiding the fact that we are not original researchers? And if pushed do any of us really claim to be experts outside of our own field? The number of genuine "experts" who participate here is small and we all know that.

We certainly spend a great deal of time acknowledging that creationists have this problem, though.

Do we really ask them for original research? Or just any research that supports their argument without blatantly being created by those who seek to prove what they already believe?

Straggler writes:

I guess my argument boils down to the fact that we are using it.

Constantly.

I think you're overstating that.

I really don't think so. Sanity demands that we treat our empirical experience of external reality as the most reliable indicator of reality external to ourselves. How could it possibly be otherwise?

But, regardless, I think creationists are using it in the everyday sense, too. So, I don't really think this is much of a point, to be honest.

Well up to the point that it agrees with what they subjectively believe to be true. Yes. But past that point? No. At that point the denial of empirical evidence begins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 01-07-2010 10:20 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 01-08-2010 12:34 PM Straggler has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 43 of 49 (542244)
01-08-2010 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Straggler
01-08-2010 9:27 AM


Re: Methods Evidence and Assumptions
Hi, Straggler.

I've replied to this post in the "One's Own Theory" thread (Message 14), for two reasons:

1. I think we're getting away from the topic of this thread.

2. You and RAZD are both on this thread, talking about evidence. As your friend, I can't let you do that.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2010 9:27 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2010 1:04 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 44 of 49 (542255)
01-08-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Blue Jay
01-08-2010 12:34 PM


Re: Methods Evidence and Assumptions
Dude - More than fair enough.

I honestly do not want to start yet another round of that stuff myself. Yet I seem inexplicably unable to stop myself. I am a rabid fanatic. It has been officially confirmed.

And for the record if I am suffering from any of the various forms of psychological disorder (vaguely) under discussion (cog diss, conf bias, lunacy, derangement, delusion, evidential blindspots, fundamentalist blinkers, pubic crabs etc. etc. etc.)

I am honestly unaware of it. Which makes me right and everyone else wrong. All of the time. Always. I honestly just don't see why everyone else resists this oh-so-obvious conclusion?

Be happy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 01-08-2010 12:34 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2475 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 45 of 49 (543170)
01-15-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-03-2010 4:28 PM


Hi RAZD

Interesting topic.

Honest Debate: how do you read?
So do you read for understanding (as best you can)?
Or do you read to find and pick out points to base a refutation on?

For me I tend to read for understanding if I feel that the other person is at least making an attempt to read my arguments for understanding. I think it is important to fully understand what the other person is saying because otherwise there is a tendancy to just lump them into a generic view, which doesn't always work with many of the posters on EvC. I think it is also important for the reason that Bluejay highlights later in this thread. That is that we might find ourselves arguing against something simply because that person is on the other side of the debate rather than taking the time to understand a person's position and then recognising that we have some common ground.
But I will also read to refute otherwise there would be no point in replying if I was just interested in understanding the different stances held on this forum. There are not very many YEC posters as it is and so I find a sense of obligation to try to pick the most pertinent points in a post and try to show the other side of the argument.

Note also that what bluejay writes:

We, as evolutionists, are constantly fighting strawmen on this forum. It seems, in fact, that creationists are not even making any effort to understand at all.
can often be felt the other way round as well.

But yeah, for the next wee while as I get back to this forum I will probably mainly be skim reading and trying to catch up with what's been happening until I settle on which threads could do with some Arphy comments


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2010 4:28 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019