One's Own Theory

Hi, Straggler. Well, it’s not an invisible unicorn, but... ----- Agreed.But, I’m not talking about the conclusion that an invisible man whooshed everything into existence.I’m talking about the tendency of evolutionists to let that viewpoint color their opinion of everything else the creationist says. Whenever a creationist opens his or her mouth, evolutionists hear them saying, Invisible, magic man in the sky. Invisible, magic man in the sky. No offense, but I think you’re helping prove my point here.Did Peg’s belief in magic men in the sky make her wrong about population dynamics?All we saw was somebody who disagrees with our theory. And, once we took that position, we got stupid. We understand our own theory; we trust our own theory; and we were determined to defend it. We did not understand our opponent’s argument, and we let our worldview color our understanding of the evidence. In fact, we ignored empirical evidence to support our own theory.----- And I never said otherwise.Again, I’m not talking about ToE vs creationism or rationality vs spirituality. I’m only talking about debate styles and the psychology behind it.We always complain about creationists ignoring evidence, giving free reign to their confirmation bias, etc. I say that this is just a side effect of believing in a theory or worldview, and that we are generally as guilty as they are.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Slevesque.Sorry for ignoring you for so long. I wasn't sure how to reply to this at first, so I was ruminating. Then I got distracted by other posters. Maybe I overgeneralized, but I’m really not in any kind of mood to cater all of my responses to every sect and sub-faction of creationism and Intelligent Design. That gets annoying very fast. However, let me say that I don’t think the above comment applies to you personally. Still, the simple fact is that many creationists and IDists beat up on strawmen of ToE.----- And, I agree with you. In fact, I count myself among those who don’t really understand ID.Still, even though I feel that evolutionists don’t give enough credit to IDists, and am adamant with Straggler that not everything is about the ulterior motives, Straggler’s fixation on the magic man in the sky is not really that far off.----- And, those at the top generally do not have the qualifications necessary to determine what is and is not good science (or good math or good history, for that matter).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Hooah. I have a more research-oriented perspective coming into this discussion. I think the rules are completely different for teaching.For absolute certain, teachers need to be objective. The purpose of teaching is not to generate disciples, but to help a new generation make good decisions in their career fields.But, history shows that researchers who are overly cautious about objectivity are simply not as productive as assertive and opinionated researchers. In the long run, conflict between opinions probably results in better accomplishment by the overall community. However, with my individual perspective, I'm not focusing on what the community will accomplish in the future, but on what I am personally doing right now.----- I don't think you can actually back this up with statistics.
Open-mindedness probably does frequently lead to paradigm shifts, but I think the directionality of the shift is certainly in doubt. Pessimism probably causes as many "apostasies" as open-mindedness.----- And I think you may be kind of the poster child for this debate.You have an assertive, opinionated debate style; but you're not close-minded, like most opinionated people are. That, I think, is the ideal attitude for successful researchers and debaters.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

It's Friday. I'm a bit beered up (again). Don't even get me started.... Well I like to help where I can......OK. I get what you are saying. The problem with creationists in particular is that it does lie behind pretty much everything that they say here. No. Your example (as agreed earlier) was a true example of what you are saying here. I agree with that. But isn't that relatively rare? And hardly enough to base your whole argument here upon? Yes. In the instance you cite. Yes. But generally those who advocate evolution here without having direct bio research knowledge do so (I think) on the basis of advocating empirical understanding as superior to any other form of evidencing physical reality.Yes - We all get caught up in stupid debate nonsense - But ultimately I think it is this that seperates the evos from the creationists. Individual extravagances apart. Fair play. And on that score I think I have agreed with you. I think the "arrogance" of evos comes from an empirical epystemological point of view that is justified even if individual declarations of superior argument are not warranted (or helpful) in specific contexts. Well that is where I continue to disagree to some extent. I still think this is about consistently applying the superiority of empiricism to understanding the physical world. Is that just a "world view"? Maybe so? But is it a rationally justifiable "world view" in the way that creationism is not? I would say - Yes.Individuals and individual debates may not make that clear. But ultimately that is what distinguishes those who advocate a creationist viewpoint with those who advocate an evolutionary argument. Regardless of specific scientific expertise.I am no biologist. It may be that the whole evolutionary paradigm is just an anti-god construct manufactured to fool me and people like me. There could be a vast anti-Christian conspiracy going on. This is a possibility.But to me (albeit lacking bio research expertise of any sort) this seems desperately unlikely given the evidence I have seen and given what I know about science, scientists and (ultimately) the methods of scientific empirical investigation.To accept the creationist conclusions I need not only accept a huge scientific conspiracy/mistake is in play, I need also accept that their form of "knowing" (i.e. biblical, subjective experience of the divine - or whatever).So I disagre when you say that I (or those other non-bio research literate evos amongst us) are just "believing in" or subscribing to a world view in the same way that the creos are.Because I think anyone with even an adequate laymans understanding of science, philosophy of science, logic and knowledge in general can see that some forms of "knowing" are superior to others. Even if we (perhaps unjustifiably) assume that the word of "experts" in such areas is derived from this (wholly philosophically justfified) form of "knowing". A form of "knowing" that we do "believe in". To use your words. That is the differnce.Does that make sense?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I meant to say this to you some time ago. But our recent spat got in the way. I wanted to say that my experience in the What exactly is ID? thread (particularly the posts up and down thread from Message 873) suggested that despite my protestations you might be right about those who deny on principle.But I (obviously) still don't think of myself as one of those idealogue maniacs.

Well, why does any belief have to have empirical evidence for it to be true?And if that is true, wouldn't it actually render almost all of humanity's cultural and moral beliefs invalid?Why does any piece of knowledge or cultural or moral belief/philosophy have to have an academic study before something can be considered valid?

It doesn't. But it can't be shown to be true without evidence. For instance, I could believe, completely without evidence, that gravity is caused by the warping of space time by mass. Now, this is (as far as we know now) correct. However, If I cannot show this to be the case, say by observing stars that are behind the sun during a solar eclipse, then my belief might be correct, but I have now way of showing others that it is correct. It is therefore completely useless to believe things that you have no evidence for, for thy cannot be distinguished from made up shit. What do you mean by "cultural and moral beliefs"? Because without evidence, it cannot be distinguished from made up shit.

How can we determine what is true and what is false if not through empirical evidence? How can we get from belief to knowledge except through objective evidence and reasoning?If something becomes true by the mere act of uttering it then what good is truth?

I don't feel I have anything much to add to this thread but I just wanted to comment on this. As a Christian I feel that faith is a very good thing, but I have a hunch that what I believe I am to have faith in is something different than what you are thinking.I believe that what I am called to have faith in is the idea that God is a loving God and that He desires that I reflect that love for His creation in my life. I am sure that there are those who believe that faith in a certain doctrine is what counts in order to make oneself right with God, but it just isn't scriptural. I would also add that one can have faith in what God desires without having the doctrine, and conversely I believe that you can have the correct doctrine but still not have the faith that God desires. If you have a Bible handy read Romans 2 and particularly vs 12-16. JMHO

quote:

---

What do you mean by "cultural and moral beliefs"?

---

An example of cultural and moral beliefs would be that children must be protected trumps the right of individuals, or within American political parties, the existence of partisan politics.From Free Dictionary the meaning of Partisan politics (for those who wish me to define partisan politics)partisan 1 (prt-zn)
n.
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.In which case I mean definition 1.

quote:

---

Because without evidence, it cannot be distinguished from made up shit.

---

So would a saying like "Racism exists" just be made up shit? Why would evidence be needed to show that it exists?And what would be the evidence need to show that it exists?

quote:

---

How can we determine what is true and what is false if not through empirical evidence?

---

Well, let's take something like say patriotism. We can take a claim like "there are people who are very loyal to their country".So, why would this need empirical evidence to be true?

Ok. Not sure what to say about this one. That one's pretty irrational if there is no good reason to support the party, other than that being the "party line". Well, since evidence is readily available that it exists, I don't see the problem here. The fact that people of one "race" treat people of a different "race" differently than people from their own "race", which plenty of people do.

Because else it would be a lie, or indistinguishable from it. But since some people are very loyal to their country, I don't see a problem here.

quote:

---

Ok. Not sure what to say about this one.

---

Yes this one is a tough one because it contains both cultural beliefs and moral beliefs at the same time. Not all cultures believes this way.In contrast, some Muslim countries marry their girls off at the age of fifteen through arranged marriages and see nothing wrong with it and don't see it as abuse while child advocates (in America at least) would more than likely call it child abuse and want to take the child away.

quote:

---

Because else it would be a lie, or indistinguishable from it. But since some people are very loyal to their country, I don't see a problem here.

---

The problem is with the statement of:In order for something to be true it must have empirical evidence to support it.If this Wiki is correct on what Empirical evidence is:

quote:

---

Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer.

---

Then wouldn't it be impossible to determine that some people are very loyal to their country? And if it's impossible to determine it, then wouldn't that mean it can not be true?

Why wouldn't it require empirical evidence?Let's take something like, "Mickey Mouse flies UFO's."Wouldn't you want empirical evidence before you accepted this as true? Or would my simple utterance of the claim make it true? What if I pointed to a book where someone else makes the same claim, but with no evidence. Would that make it true?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.