|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You made my chosen opponent B team
Message 8 It was either you or Ringo. You got in as the token theist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, CS.
Catholic Scientist writes: I'd team up with you. Thanks! -----
Catholic Scientist writes: Since everyone else is already drooling over Modulus, I don't want him anymore. I'd take Coyote and Cavediver or Wounded King. Ringo would be helpful. The way I see it, the team should include a few types of people:
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes: You made my chosen opponent B team. In middle school (~12 years old), I made the D-team in basketball (seriously), but I actually scored my only two points of the season while filling in on an ad hoc C-team when we played a school without a D-team. -----
Straggler writes: It was either you or Ringo. You got in as the token theist. Praise the Lord for affirmative action, I guess. Now to go gloat at Ringo via PM*.
*This is a joke: I am not actually going to do this. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
*ahem* I have other offers. Now to go gloat at Ringo via PM*. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
That illustrates the difference between science and creationism. Scientists are responsible for what other scientists say. They do have to fit all of it into their own hypotheses. You don't actually believe this to be the case, do you ? If a scientist disagrees with another on the interpretation fo such and such set of data, he is not obliged to still include it into his own hypotheses. How else could science move forward ? If all scientists hypothesized that Ether existed, would I then be forced, as a physicist, to fit it into my physics theories ?
Creationists, on the other hand, seem to think they can each have their own crackpot "theory", picking and choosing what they like from what other creationists claim. There are strict young-earthers, there are old-earthers, there are old-earth/young-lifers.... You find many crackpot theories amongst layman creationists, but there aren't that many trends in creationism as a whole. YEC scientists almost all agree on a well defined framework, and disagree on the finer points. I don't see how this is any different from evolution, where the framework is general and the diagreements on the specifics. And where you sometime find the layman with some excentric view of all of it. (I had a philo professor that thought apes came from humans, not the other way around. for example)
So it's quite reasonable for EvC members to start with a preconception of what a creationist is. It's your responsibility to distinguish yourself. I think it is only logical that, you would be better off having a good preconceived notion about people then a bad one. It is better for you to be wrong about someone because you viewed them higher then they were, then to be wrong because you viewed them lower then they were.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
No, preconceived notions are expectations. It is more then simply expectations. Preconceived notions are a definite statement about particular individual (in this context) because of an assessment you made about the larger group. If you have stated ''all creationists are idiots'', then it is more then expectations when you meet one. You will speak to him, treat him as such, until you start to see it is maybe otherwise (which, depending on the strength of the preconceived notion, may be never no matter how intelligent the person is) Note that, in my view, even if all the creationist you had encountered up to date were idiots, this attitude would still be unjustifiable, because of what I ended my replies to Ringo with. The fact that you do have counter-examples only makes it that much worse.
There really isn't "plenty" of debate among scientists which makes me doubt the "well-thinking" of the rest of the people out there. There are plenty of skeptics of the current theory of evolution out there.
What you are arguing against is the blatant disregard of a debater's position and dishonesty in argument. Not preconceived notions. I'm arguing against people having already a firmly bad opinion of somebody else before he has even said a word. Of course, we will always have an opinion of someone even before they speak, what I'm saying is that we must force unto ourselves that this opinion be a unsettled, but good, opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
slevesque writes: You don't actually believe this to be the case, do you ? If a scientist disagrees with another on the interpretation fo such and such set of data, he is not obliged to still include it into his own hypotheses. We're not talking about the frontiers of science. You guys can't even agree whether the Earth is 6000 years old or 4.56 billion years old, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether God created Adam and Eve and all the rest of life, or if instead an intelligent designer is constantly tweaking all species to cause change over time, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether there was a global flood 4350 years ago that wiped out almost all life, or whether there was just a big local flood in the Middle East sometime in the last 10 or 20 thousand years, or even whether there was ever any flood at all, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. We're talking about some of the most simple things to know, some of the easiest things to nail down, and you guys can't even reach agreement with each other about them. If a YEC can't convince an OEC, and vice versa, then how could either group ever hope to convince anyone in science. The reason you guys can't agree on anything is because you're all looking to revelation instead of the real world for answers. The reason scientists agree about so much is because they use reality as their guide. You guys should really give it a try some time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
We're not talking about the frontiers of science. Scientists don't just disagree on ''the frontiers of science''. This whole idea that scientists play such a team game that they fit into their own hypotheses what other scientists say has no legs at all. In fact, if we take the example of evolution, the only thing every evolutionists agree on is that evolution happened. After that, it's an open game, and you could probably find someone who disagrees with the majority on pretty much every single point.
you guys can't even agree whether the Earth is 6000 years old or 4.56 billion years old, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether God created Adam and Eve and all the rest of life, or if instead an intelligent designer is constantly tweaking all species to cause change over time, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether there was a global flood 4350 years ago that wiped out almost all life, or whether there was just a big local flood in the Middle East sometime in the last 10 or 20 thousand years, or even whether there was ever any flood at all, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. YEC creationists have all answers they all agree upon on all those questions. Of course, you do relaize what you are doing, right ? You are implicitly using a definition of creationism say god damn large that it is normal there are a whole bunch if disagreeing people in the pack, anything else then that would be surprising. You even included directed evolution in that, which is clearly not creationist from any reasonable definition. In fact, when you do take the real definition of creationist, there will be only to great trends: YEC and OEC.
We're talking about some of the most simple things to know, some of the easiest things to nail down, and you guys can't even reach agreement with each other about them. If a YEC can't convince an OEC, and vice versa, then how could either group ever hope to convince anyone in science. This is a very simplistic and irrealist view on this. If there is a group of YEc and of OEC at ay given point in time, it does not mean any particular member of one group never was convinced of the validity of the other pov.
The reason you guys can't agree on anything is because you're all looking to revelation instead of the real world for answers. The reason scientists agree about so much is because they use reality as their guide. You guys should really give it a try some time. Srawman, if we were strictly looking at revelation there would probably in fact be only YEC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
slevesque writes: Scientists don't just disagree on ''the frontiers of science''. This whole idea that scientists play such a team game that they fit into their own hypotheses what other scientists say has no legs at all. The only thing with no legs at all is what you just said. Go to the science section in any library and you'll find oodles of books detailing the scientific consensus across the whole breadth of science. There couldn't possibly be widespread disagreement about the core of science because, like I said before, reality is their guide. Scientists understand the pointlessness of ignoring reality, creationists don't. That's why you're ignoring the reality of the broad scientific consensus right now.
slevesque writes: In fact, if we take the example of evolution, the only thing every evolutionists agree on is that evolution happened. After that, it's an open game, and you could probably find someone who disagrees with the majority on pretty much every single point. I grant that if your criteria is just to "find somebody" that you'll probably have no trouble doing that, but can you name any fundamental tenet of evolution that more than 1% of biologists question? Go ahead, try. If creationists were paying attention to reality instead of revelation then they would agree on things like the age of the Earth and a global flood and so forth, but they aren't and they don't. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
The only thing with no legs at all is what you just said. Go to the science section in any library and you'll find oodles of books detailing the scientific consensus across the whole breadth of science. There couldn't possibly be widespread disagreement about the core of science because, like I said before, reality is their guide. Any textbook of physics would tell me that gravity is a fundamental force. Yet you can still find someone who questions if it even exists as a fundamental force (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf) Does everyone now have to incorporate what he said into their hypotheses ? Or does he have to subdue his hypothese to the majority ? This is the claim Ringo made, and this is what I am claiming is not conform to reality. Sure, there are some set of data that force a single explanation, and in those cases everyone agrees. But as soon as there are alternative interpretations, you are bound to find a groupe of scientist who adovcate it. In fact, I would probably guess that there are fewer sets of data that force a single interpretation then there are sets of data that have multiple interpretations. Drawing from my own field of physics, it seems people will agree on electromagnetism, General Relativity and some parts of quantum physics. But after that, it's once again seems open game from where I stand. Don't be fooled because textbooks present a given hypotheses/theory as if it was established. It presents the majority, but not the concensus.
I grant that if your criteria is just to "find somebody" that you'll probably have no trouble doing that, but can you name any fundamental tenet of evolution that more than 1% of biologists question? Go ahead, try. Did lucy walk upright ? (Of course, you saying ''a fundamental tenet'' doesn't render justice to what I said. I agree that the fundamentals of evolution are agreed upon.)
If creationists were paying attention to reality instead of revelation then they would agree on things like the age of the Earth and a global flood and so forth, but they aren't and they don't. Your setting up a false dichotomy, in that it is either ''you base yourself on reality, and everyone agrees'' or ''you base yourself on revelation, and it's a free for all''.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Of course they do. They have to show why he's wrong and they're right. Does everyone now have to incorporate what he said into their hypotheses ? "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: Note that, in my view, even if all the creationist you had encountered up to date were idiots, this attitude would still be unjustifiable, because of what I ended my replies to Ringo with. Then you simply don't learn. But keep in mind that I do have good preconceived notions about people to start with; I don't expect them to be Creationists.
slevesque writes: There are plenty of skeptics of the current theory of evolution out there. Since you dropped the "well-thinking" and the claim never included "people who are qualified to assess the topic" then I can agree that there are plenty of people out there who don't accept evolutionary theory. Of course I wouldn't phrase it as being "skeptics" exactly, but I'll chalk that up to semantics.
slevesque writes: I'm arguing against people having already a firmly bad opinion of somebody else before he has even said a word. For that to apply we would have to expect people to be Creationists before they said a word. Somehow I don't think thats the default people trend toward in this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Of course they do. They have to show why he's wrong and they're right. That is a very loose definition of 'incorporate' But then if that's what you meant, it isn't different from what creationist do with other creationist views. They 'incorporate' them by making rebutals. They ''play a team game'' just as much as everyone else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Then you simply don't learn. What ? You'll find that you'll learn more if every time someone new says something, you consider him an intelligent person until proven otherwise. Sure, maybe you'll just find one diamond in 100 piles of crap, but that 1 is the edge on someone with a negative approach.
But keep in mind that I do have good preconceived notions about people to start with; I don't expect them to be Creationists. And my good preconceived notions of you are starting to evaporate
Since you dropped the "well-thinking" and the claim never included "people who are qualified to assess the topic" then I can agree that there are plenty of people out there who don't accept evolutionary theory. Of course I wouldn't phrase it as being "skeptics" exactly, but I'll chalk that up to semantics. Never meant to drop the 'well-thinking', I thought it would pass through as implicit since this is what I was responding to.
For that to apply we would have to expect people to be Creationists before they said a word. Somehow I don't think thats the default people trend toward in this forum. I think you knew exactly what I was trying to say. I certainly hope your not starting to play on words
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Slevesque,
Any textbook of physics would tell me that gravity is a fundamental force. Yet you can still find someone who questions if it even exists as a fundamental force Sure, you can find someone who will question any part of the scientific consensus, but in the case of gravity, this is very unusual and on the fringe. In creationism this is the norm. Every time a new creationist registers here, we have to work out exactly which of the many flavours of creationism they favour, and there are a great many varieties. Is the Earth old or young for example? This is a major division amongst creationists. Is Christian creationism true or is Islamic creationism the one? Christians creationists may be the most vocal on this forum, but I seriously doubt that they make up a worldwide majority of those with creationist views. This is a major schism in creationist thought and one which will never be healed. There is nothing comparable in science.
I agree that the fundamentals of evolution are agreed upon. Indeed they are. Now define "kind". See the problem? Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024