Faith's Participation in EvC

Ugh..which stone did you crawl out from under?

So you say - but it was the obvious relish with which he/she took the opportunity to dig personally at Faith that I found repulsive - not the argument that he/she was making. I guess if you don't see it though...

Are we talking suspension from the Science threads or from EvC. I don't go into the science threads myself much so cannot comment on Faith there. Most of Faiths posts seem to be in faith/worldview area of things and I don't think much of a case could be made for poor argument there.I note also that the "proof-posts" which Percy refers to as representing his current dissatisfaction ("Faith science...Logically Indefensible") happen to occur in the "Is it Science" forum. That of necessity means science philosophy is on the menu. And it is a person asserting things as if their philosophy is a fact and as if they understand what faith is which Faith is addressing by way of counter assertion. It could have been fleshed out more (i think of what the founding fathers of scientific method would make of someone saying an assumption of God having created means a person cannot do science) but I think there are bigger fish to fry around here if "great debate is (truly) the goal"Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm sure the problem is more difficult than that. Perhaps see it this way.Faith is articulate and has problems with forum guidelines at times. On the other hand, in survey of Post of the Months I did some time back, Faith was the person whose opponents were most nominated for Potm's - lending support to the expressed view in this thread that she challenges opponants to work hard in their opposition.She is a high volume poster too.Now Faith sits in a pool of posters, the total of whom make up the flavour and quality of EvC. If we were to imagine for a moment that Faith were divided into 4 separate posters then we would have 4 articulate posters who are capable of high quality and who exhibit the problems Percy suggests of them. These 4 posters would be average volume posters.In this fashion, we see that these 4 posters dissappear into a much larger pool of posters very many of which exhibit the very same positive/negative attributes as our gang of four. We see immediately that these 4 are rendered a relatively insignificant portion of the whole - the whole is that which sets the tone and quality.If one is to eliminate Faith then it is only 4 drops removed from the bathful of any problem. It seems to me that if one is seriously intent on addressing a global problem then one must evolve things on a macro level. Not on the micro.

I think we are in fact making the same point - given what I've read you say elsewhere.Faith extracts mod input time. But she also inputs high quality posts. In the measure the bad we get the good. I suggested 4 times as much of each compared to an articulate, passionate poster of average volume.Lets not forget that her posting volume and history mean a raised profile. She is far more likely to be pulled up for transgression than are others who throw in insults, ad homs and dodges - yet don't get pulled up precisely because their being less volumetric keeps the profile low enough to fly under the radar.That was my point about seeing her as simply 4 typical EvC posters. What is the specific problem with her other than volume (which to is just part of a pool) Ban her in the hope that this will improve quality of debate means logically that you should ban members in groups of 4 to keep the purge going.Where do you stop if not at Quetzals elite group of expert debaters?

I don't think this is off-topic for the "Is it Science" forum.Stragglers OP starts out with a philosophical notion as to what science is about (for what the purpose and boundaries of science are is a philosophical issue). The current philosophy precludes anything being assumed from the off. Evidence leads you to any conclusions you may arrive at - you go where you are led. Science is totally open ended in other words.This is not always the way things were. The founding fathers of scienfic methodology: Newton, Joule, Faraday, Bacon, Kepler et al were believers. They were convinced that the world was the product of an ordered, logical and methodological Creator God and that an ordered, logical and methodological approach would reveal how this creation worked. Their presumption didn't prevent them doing science. Science was an activity carried out within the encompassing boundary of a philosophy (or rather belief). There is no a priori need to suppose science should usurp belief if science is held to be a subject of beliefSimilarily, a conviction that the flood happened does not prevent a person doing boundaried, disciplined science within the philosphy which holds that "God did it and now I want to find out how it all came to be". I suppose I will face a deluge of objection saying that the evidence doesn't support the flood but this is irrelevant to the fact that a person can do science so described. Whether they have or ever will not the issue at hand in the OP.Faiths response rejects the assumption that Stragglers asserts is absolute and non-negotiable. She must begin with this or else Stagglers case is made on the basis of mission defined as impossible by him. It is always a good defence to reject or query the nature of the attack. Very efficient too. Let the asserter do the work.Could she have argued this better? Sure, but if crafting of the OP is coarse and leaves itself open to swift rebuttal then why not do so?

The point of the thread was to assert a view as to what science entails and on the basis of that assertion exclude any other views which may be held about what science entails. Faith was entitled to rebut the assumption that asserted Creation science is 'illogical'. The argument is dealt with here.http://EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC -->EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC{AbE} sorry link correctedEdited by iano, : No reason given.

How one reads the account of Noah and comes up with anything but a global flood is beyond me.

Can a creationist who believes the flood happened and who ignores any idea that it did not happen do science (according to their philosophy of science and not yours)

Lets leave it. This thread is about something else. I won't even try to get the last word in. Can't say fairer than that

I understand your concern but this is not what I think Faith proposes. "Creo" science must stand up as any science ever has - since the day science was born. Newtons motivation might well have been to discover how Godidit but he didn't engage in alchemy. No, he applied a methodology that was logical and ordered and rational and...well... scientific. I remember doing those tickertape laws of motion experiements myself...A person presenting a theory involving a world wide flood is not beholden to your philosophy of science Paul - they are beholden only to science itself. Which begs the question: what is science - if it is not my own philosophy of science?. This is not the place to look at that in full.But me? I picture it as a wateringhole. A place where a lot of folk who have all sorts of reasons to devour each other decide they will not. They are all agreed that there is one common denominator on which they are all agreed. And that common denominator (bar the quacks) is water.What constitutes water might well be a subject to investigate. But to assume command and define what constitutes water (as is so often the evo stance here) is, I think, the root of the problem.She has said as much in so very many words. And now she is up for being banned because of it. Shame on you who would have it so.

Tentatively, circumspectively..and with a retitence I can barely overcome.I.....agree.....with....banzai......you

What science isn't is what has been agreed upon and developed over the years. Science is far more objective than such a flimsy notion as "what some agreed upon and developed over the years". God forbid that Science be merely the fashion of the ideology of the times in which it was developed. It is far simpler than that - I must suppose. Your way suggests that "if the times had been different the science would have been different" *shivers* No need Schraf. The OP in question (and I've only gotten to Percy's exhibit #1) is pure philosophy.

I hold to a God ordained view of man/woman relationship...ta very much {AbE} Steady Schraf...its about an equality so equal it would send shivers down your spineEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Yeah..me neither. Ban the bitch!