Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2019 6:10 AM
23 online now:
Heathen (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,297 Year: 12,333/19,786 Month: 2,114/2,641 Week: 69/554 Day: 6/63 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   ID and the bias inherent in human nature
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 105 (203091)
04-27-2005 5:42 PM


Critics of evolution get alot of ridicule from people with a mindset not too different from the mindset that condemned Galileo. The scientific community at that time attacked him because his ideas threatened the entire framework through which they viewed the world.

A similar situation exists today with evolution. Discussion of other theories and/or weaknesess of evolution are simply not tolerated. True cause of the debate: worldviews in conflict.

Facts dont always speak for themselves. They're interpreted according to a framework. The framework one uses to interprete facts is inevitably affected by prior philosophical beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a creator.

So it’s NOT about "biased religious creationists" versus objective scientific evolutionists. Its about the biases of religions versus the biases of non-religions resulting in different interpretations of the exact same scientific data.

Nobodys perfect, and scientists are people too. A mistake scientists have been known to make is to ignore or rule out data which do not support a hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong" with data which do not support the scientists expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully.

If honest mistakes were all we had to worry about that would be one thing. But we also have to worry about the possibility of outright fraud.

When you actually bother to learn a thing or two about Galileo and the development, rise and fall of the geocentric worldview, it seems the people who most resemble the defenders of that old "flat-earth" worldview are not the opponents of evolution, but its proponents.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 04-27-2005 5:57 PM Limbo has responded
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 6:17 PM Limbo has responded
 Message 10 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 8:24 PM Limbo has responded
 Message 12 by dsv, posted 04-27-2005 8:47 PM Limbo has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3887
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 105 (203097)
04-27-2005 5:51 PM


Now everyone, let's keep this topic calm and friendly
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

People - See the subtitle.

Shall we shoot for less, but higher quality messages? I can only hope.

Adminnemooseus

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-27-2005 05:54 PM


    
CK
Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 3 of 105 (203099)
04-27-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Limbo
04-27-2005 5:42 PM


quote:
Nobodys perfect, and scientists are people too. A mistake scientists have been known to make is to ignore or rule out data which do not support a hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong" with data which do not support the scientists expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully.

If honest mistakes were all we had to worry about that would be one thing. But we also have to worry about the possibility of outright fraud.


Can you suggest a system to overcome this problem? Maybe you know of an existing system that we could use?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 5:42 PM Limbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 10:20 PM CK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 4 of 105 (203111)
04-27-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Limbo
04-27-2005 5:42 PM


I'm afraid that the "everyone's biased" line would be more convincing if it were the case that the two parties really were on a level footing.

Unfortunately that's not true.

In recent discussions here we have been told that Dembski's Explanatory Filter is an important part of ID. Yet there are only a very few examples of it being used at all - even within ID - and nobody has been able to find even one example of it being correctly applied to biology.

Behe's IC idea failed as an anti-evolution arguemnt from the start. Behe admitted that IC sstems could evolve by what he called "indirect routes". Behe is of the opinion that such routes are highly unlikely but has yet to show that this is true - and so far the evidence tneds the other way. Indeed Behe and Dembski seem to prefer fiddling with the definition in the hope that somehow that will make the argument work but there really doesn't seem to be any way that that can save the argument.

The two big ideas of ID have flopped. That's a fact.

Don't believe the propaganda. Check out the facts for yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 5:42 PM Limbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 6:28 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 6 by CK, posted 04-27-2005 6:33 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 105 (203117)
04-27-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
04-27-2005 6:17 PM


ID is still very young. It needs time (decades, maybe) to flesh itself out...to work out the kinks...to organize.

I would like to see ID have a chance to grow and adapt. If the "ID movement" were a movie, and we were all watching it together in a theatre, I would say we are still in the opening credits. And I would say to the hecklers in the audience: be quiet, watch the movie, and see what happens.

Im not saying anyone in this thread is a heckler, in fact they are great responces so far.

This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 06:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 6:17 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 6:38 PM Limbo has responded
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 10:22 PM Limbo has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 6 of 105 (203121)
04-27-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
04-27-2005 6:17 PM


What more interesting is how the movement seems to have shifted away slightly from ID as a concept towards ID as "Controversial issues*". I think they realise it's a busted flush and are trying to spin it out as long as possible.

*because there MUST be something to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 6:17 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 7 of 105 (203123)
04-27-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Limbo
04-27-2005 6:28 PM


But nobody is stopping the ID movement from developing their ideas. They're free to do that all they like.

The main battle is over school curricula - and if you agree that ID is not ready to go there then it makes no sense to say that the ID movement should not be opposed in those efforts. And the ID movement certainly shouldn't be trying to remove evidence for evolution from the classroom or supporting the teaching of YEC in science classes. So there's nthing wrong in opposing them on those front's either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 6:28 PM Limbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 6:47 PM PaulK has responded

    
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 105 (203126)
04-27-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
04-27-2005 6:38 PM


quote:
But nobody is stopping the ID movement from developing their ideas. They're free to do that all they like.

I would argue that the biases in the scientific community and in the media are retarding the development of the ID theory.

This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 06:48 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 6:38 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 7:06 PM Limbo has not yet responded
 Message 16 by christian atheist, posted 04-27-2005 11:12 PM Limbo has responded
 Message 17 by Clark, posted 04-27-2005 11:51 PM Limbo has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 9 of 105 (203133)
04-27-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Limbo
04-27-2005 6:47 PM


It's all very well to assert that, but we would need evidence.

In what way are they being hindered ?

It seems obvious to me that it isn't bias on the part of the scientiifc community or the media that is stopping ID supporters from making more use of Dembsk's EF, for instance. It's the practical problems of actually using the EF in non-trivial situations that is the real stopper there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 6:47 PM Limbo has not yet responded

    
mick
Member (Idle past 3184 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 10 of 105 (203152)
04-27-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Limbo
04-27-2005 5:42 PM


Hello Limbo, and welcome to the forum!

Critics of evolution get alot of ridicule from people with a mindset not too different from the mindset that condemned Galileo. The scientific community at that time attacked him because his ideas threatened the entire framework through which they viewed the world. A similar situation exists today with evolution. Discussion of other theories and/or weaknesess of evolution are simply not tolerated.

Galileo was not attacked by the "scientific community". Galieo lived from 1564-1642. In those days the "scientific community" simply did not exist. Should you care to read a history book, you will find that Galileo was persecuted by the religious community, and not by scientists.

Modern critics of evolution are simply NOT treated in the way that Galileo was. Galileo was imprisoned for his whole life for his beliefs; his works were threatened with censorship; he was denied medical treatment throughout his life after detention; he was interrogated under threat of torture; he may even have been tortured, but we don't know because the records of his detention no longer exist. His records were destroyed because he was considered a nobody. This sort of treatment was reserved for enemies of religion, not of science.

If you want to make yourself into a martyr, please try to get imprisoned and tortured by evolutionary biologists. You may find this a difficult task. Far more difficult than it was to get tortured by Christians in the sixteenth century.

We all like to think that we are the bearers of truth in a world of darkness. When you get over your own very special oppression fantasy, you may be capable of writing seriously on the subject.

Mick

This message has been edited by mick, 04-27-2005 08:28 PM

for you edutainment, or whatever, here is what happened to people who challenged religion in Galileo's times:

http://www.gracklenews.com/content/0403/images/burn_stake.jpg

When you show me pictures of american creationists undergoing this treatment, i may treat your post with less contempt.

This message has been edited by mick, 04-27-2005 08:42 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 5:42 PM Limbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 8:28 PM mick has responded

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 105 (203153)
04-27-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mick
04-27-2005 8:24 PM


quote:
Galileo was not attacked by the "scientific community". Galieo lived from 1564-1642. In those days the "scientific community" simply did not exist. Should you care to read a history book, you will find that Galileo was persecuted by the religious community.

the religious community WAS the scientific community back then. You can't fight city hall, no matter what century you live in.

And thanks for the welcome! Glad to be here!

This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 08:29 PM

This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 08:30 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 8:24 PM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 8:49 PM Limbo has responded
 Message 14 by Lammy, posted 04-27-2005 8:57 PM Limbo has not yet responded

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 2922 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 12 of 105 (203158)
04-27-2005 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Limbo
04-27-2005 5:42 PM


Nobodys perfect, and scientists are people too. A mistake scientists have been known to make is to ignore or rule out data which do not support a hypothesis.

Just as a quick point to think about in the discussion...

I think there is a fundamental difference between Christian theology and science with respect to the checks and balances within their respective communities.

Every Christian is basically working from the Bible. It's considered the word of God and is therefore true.

What "outsiders", if you will, don't always realize is that science is an extremely competitive community. There are checks and balances to theories. Everyone wants the new hot theory that will change everything, contrary to your belief.

For an example, just look at String Theory. Supported by many scientists that have always been held in very high regard and continue to be. There are no anti-Christian conspiracies involved with it, it comes from some of the leading minds in science. We're not refusing to see God or what have you, etc. etc. {insert all the reasons ID supposedly hasn't been accepted}, it's just that science comes with a specific set of guidelines to insure that it is indeed science.

This message has been edited by dsv, Wednesday, April 27, 2005 08:48 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 5:42 PM Limbo has not yet responded

    
mick
Member (Idle past 3184 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 13 of 105 (203160)
04-27-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Limbo
04-27-2005 8:28 PM


okay, i'm waiting for the picture of michael behe being burned at the stake
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 8:28 PM Limbo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 8:58 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3611
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 14 of 105 (203163)
04-27-2005 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Limbo
04-27-2005 8:28 PM


Can I ask you a simple question to clear something up?

Are you implying that at any place in any time if an idea is not well recognized by mainstream (insert word here), the idea must be unjustly "persecuted"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Limbo, posted 04-27-2005 8:28 PM Limbo has not yet responded

    
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 105 (203164)
04-27-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mick
04-27-2005 8:49 PM


hehe very funny picture that would make. Seriously though I am only comparing the mindset and not the circumstances. BIG difference.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 8:49 PM mick has not yet responded

  
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019