AdminNosy banned?

What the ???Ned, if you poke your nose in this thread, just to let you know I liked your writing. Not sure what is prompting the disappearance but have fun wherever you go.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I hope this is just for the holidays or something. It does seem odd though that they'd be suspended (or suspend themselves) rather than simply not posting.I will particularly miss Omni, but as I have already mentioned I enjoyed Ned and while I may have a sort of clunky relationship with Jar I'd rather not seem him gone.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

perm or temp? as admins or as posters as well?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

But there are some things which reduce to pure opinion and that may be where it must be left... difference of opinion... even in science.I think many people, most especially Percy, were taking nwr's statements incorrectly.In the history of science, seemingly solid theories have been held by the scientific community at large as obvious and essentially incontrovertible, only to be changed when unforeseen data emerged later. In fact there have been instances where the ultimately correct theory had less supportive evidence, or equal supportive evidence as an incorrect theory and all that scientists had to separate the two were personal opinion. Both worked well enough for what they could be used for at the time.This especially occurs where there is much still left to be revealed. Perhaps we have limited access or vantage points.It seems to me that NWR was simply explaining that he, personally, was not certain that the BB theory would end up being the final theory regarding the origins of the universe. That is he was unaware of data sufficient enough to make him accept that theory as the likely full explanation. As he put it, he has a higher level of criteria for acceptance.There was nothing wrong, nor antiscience in that stance.To my mind, he didn't advocate that BB wasn't the best theory science has at this time, nor that people should doubt it, nor that he had some replacement theory. Those ARE the positions of creationists and why they would bump heads with scientists holding BB theory. He was simply saying, given the science on that subject as he was aware of it (which he admitted was not complete), his position was "I don't know".That seems to me a very honest and quite scientific view of the subject.It seems patently bizarre and antiscientific for the likes of Percy and others to argue that nwr should say that he does know, or act as if they do know BB is true... that it will stand the test of time. That seems to be more a statement of clairvoyant powers than anything else.It is true that he does not seem to have an accurate understanding of that body of knowledge. Thus when he attempted to explain what were possible issues, he could be taken to task. But it is errant to think that that sort of picking away could change his opinion that he did not know... that he might have lingering doubts BB will hold up over time. To attempt such a point by point refutation is to miss the very point he was making about his position.In Percy's defense, nwr totally restarted the argument after it seemed clear percy was willing to let it drop. But then again neither took their own advice to others to "let it go", and clearly Percy continues to post on the attack.And NWR was correct, as are others, that the tone with which Percy advances his position is caustic well beyond necessity. The fact that it was clearly disturbing nwr, and others, should have been enough for him to recognize it was time to give way. That's besides my own belief that Percy was unwilling to understand what NWR was arguing, insisting that he (Percy himself) could tell NWR what NWR was thinking and saying. Both issues seem to be a habit (causticism and esp) allowed to those that purport to be "scientific" at evc.To my mind Percy (et al) are the same kind of "upright scientists" who slammed those who questioned geocentric theory, in the name of science.BB is a theory. Its the best we have right now, and it is productive. I personally like it. But there is no reason why a person cannot feel unsatisfied that it is the ultimate explanation... the one that will stand the test of time. There is still room for doubt on THAT question.Its only when a person starts saying BB is not the best scientfic theory we presently have, they know it is wrong, or because they doubt BB another theory is equally likely, that there are valid logical and evidentiary criticisms to be made.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Sorry about the retread then.AbE: You appeared to be saying that nwr's opinion was rejecting science and that he was attempting to "posit and dodge". To make sure... I was disagreeing with that assessment. Well that's somewhat ironic as he himself has declined such invitations in the past, stating that if that is what is desired then the other person should leave. Apparently when he is in the wrong or feels others are not understanding him then debate is of interest, even if to improve the nature of debate. When others feel the same it is simply "extending the argument".If he were to take his own advice in this matter, he should have never engaged in the behavior he did with nwr, and then taken his lumps from whatever an admin decided regarding it without further explanation (respecting authority and all that).I don't mean to punk on Percy or NWR just for the hell of it, or just to gloat over apparent hypocrisy. This is something I thought was an important matter in the past and I think it remains such today. What I'd love to see emerge from this is a recognition of how posters should be treated both by other posters as well as by admins.In this case (poster to poster issue) I think how creos are treated here, or tolerance for how they may be treated, has been revealed in how an evo was treated. Frankly I think the same thing has happened before but not by people as "respectable" as nwr and percy, which I guess elevates it for discussion.Its a debate site to be sure, which means some zingers and brilliant blows can be dealt, but it doesn't have to be a place where self-styled scientists come to beat on creos (or nonliberals) for fun. Edited by holmes, : abe

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This makes sense, but only up to a point. Your example is clear, but not universal as to what constitutes stating a position... particularly when discussing personal opinion.Personal opinion is separate from knowledge in that it does not require reason or evidence. As such it carries no weight in an argument.As long as one admits that "X" is their personal opinion, that as such inherently does not advance that position, and should mean nothing for anyone else, then you are simply beating a dead horse to continue. This logically and practically removes X from debate, because the person is ceding the point to you.It is when a person admits this then continues to repeat X as if to convince others, retreating to "it's just an opinion" when it is again confronted, that a ploy at feigning mere opinion while actually advancing an argument is revealed.On top of this, there are also underlying opinions which can exist, can be advanced, and yet are beyond debate. These have to do with feelings. That I feel something is beyond debate. I mean according to your theory of debate "strawberries taste great" has just opened the door for an excruciating attempt to convince another person otherwise.And more to the point, the opinion that "I don't know X" has a factual practical value everyone SHOULD appreciate. When a person advances that "I don't know X", why should anyone want to argue further? Unless it is used as a plank in an making another argument, it should remain what it is... as statement that the person really doesn't know!I find your argument for debate particularly double-standardish. If NWR had stated the simple opinion "I feel the BB is satisfactory as an explanation", my guess is you would not have peppered him with any of your questions. Yet, he may have had the same level of ignorance on that topic, as he had with feeling it was NOT satisfactory.Indeed I feel confident in arguing that many members have quite a bit of ignorance on that topic and so stating that they "feel satisfied" with BB, or hold the opinion it is true, is more erroneous than nwr's tantamount admission that he did not know.One might make the argument that stating one has doubts in X is more than saying I don't know. But I don't believe that is the case when one clearly states that those doubts are based on a less than full understanding of all the data, that others should not use that as a reason to have their own doubts, and generally has to do with a feeling about the extent of evidence one would like to have in a field before proclaiming X to be known. That is it is a statement about how reliable the knowledge may be in standing up over time.I don't know of any objective standard there is for telling a person "this much evidence must be sufficient for you to feel like it will stand up over time". Again the point by point discussion of what does exist, may not effect the overall position. There is no doubt that nwr didn't "let it go" and so reopened debate. However, you seem to distance yourself from the fact that you didn't let it go yourself, and pretty much insulted him to another poster. After officially closing with nwr, you still felt confident in needling him to someone else. But that gets into the whole discussion of when people should "let it go" vs the rather human trait of feeling provoked to respond.It seems to me you and nwr both seem to feel that YOU are allowed to be provoked into response, but no one else should do so.Yet this is a digression from your discussion on opinion. In this case NWR's response to your post was NOT to discuss the specifics of BB theory. He was trying to discuss a difference between the two of you on how science operates. He has a different epistemic methodology. His examples (and there was more than just the luminous ether) were meant to point out a way of viewing scientific conclusions, methods more important than concrete explanations.This lead to the conclusion, and it is valid, that it takes more for him to accept an explanation. Your idea that someone can be argued that he should lower his standards is strange. Getting anything right? He at best used a less than perfect example for what he was talking about. His discussion of Newton was okay. I could, and have, added the example of heliocentrim/geocentrism.In any case, he was not advancing a position against BB. He was stating a personal position, and one that did not include any alternatives. Thus an admission he did not know and in specific he was not knowledgable enough with BB to say he knew that. He felt there was enough room that there could be changes, some perhaps significant, in the future.Big deal. Again, that seems more honest, than the opposite, which is to ignorantly parrot scientific findings in a pretense to knowledge.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I was trying to point out that there are opinions which are beyond questioning. That are reasonably not open to attack, mainly because they rely on emotion and not logic or evidence. As long as a person admits it is an opinion which holds no value as knowledge, then I am not sure what your point is in suggesting further attack is justified. If you are going to begin attacking me personally, then I am not interested in further discussion. This can be done without calling my reading comprehension skills into question.The thrust of your argument seems to be that you feel nwr was not merely stating a personal opinion. I would grant that his first statement which led to your asking him to explain what he meant could be read as either advancing a position, or making a personal statement of opinion. The fact that he used an emotional term ("satisfying") rather than a factual term ("conclusive", "suggestive"...) hit me as a personal position.However, I don't see how his response to your request can be read any other way than a nonadvancing statement of personal opinion... That appears to me to be a statement of lack of knowledge on the subject and that his opinion can hold no force, before he even begins. It concludes with him saying... Here he describes that it is his skepticism He does not appear to be saying it should be YOUR skepticism or anyone else's. He makes it temporary and conditional, which means he can't be slamming it as strongly as you seem to make out for his position.Now he could very well have been wrong about that whole redshift thing. It seems he is. But then all you revealed is that nwr may have had more than just the redshifting issue underlying his personal doubt. And that seems to be what he tried to explain to you. In other words after being shown that he was more ignorant of the facts than he already admitted he was, he explained that there was a greater underlying level of doubt he legitimately could appeal to?If a person claims that they meant something other than what they appear to have said, or that they hold another position on top of points already expressed, why not take them at their word? I mean you can say "it looks like he did X", but what's the point of arguing that? Frankly I believe nwr's statement. It seems to align with things he has said in the past.The question to you is is his position (new or not) valid? Does it square with what he said in his very first explanatory post, or not? To my mind the answer to both is yes.That is unless one wants to start with your position and read everything in the light of your position of what he was doing. It seems to me that is what YOU are doing. You thought he meant something which he didn't, and then began an attack you could not pull out of and in the process became so convinced your interpretation of his position is right, you resist any explanation to the contrary.Indeed you seem to be arguing people are defending him to a degree you cannot understand. Couldn't it be that is because you are not allowing your interpretation to drop and see what people are saying? See it from a different perspective?I have no vested interest in whether nwr was right or not, whether he was evading or not. Why would I make such a thing up? I mean its not even like I'm arguing he was pure in this. His reiterated position was that he was not comfortable in accepting the BB theory, after appealing to (or defining yet again, depending on how you read him before) a nonevidentiary based reason. I'm not seeing what the problem is with this.At worst that seems to be defining the form of his disengagement. I am not trying to take sides on who acted worse.I agree with what you say regarding anyone challenging a scientific theory. I agree with your definition/outline of scientific method (which apparently nwr does not agree with). I even agree that in a debate forum you can go for the jugular on an error.The problem is that you seemed to want to create a foil for your position to such a degree that you stopped listening to what nwr was actually saying... and now others. You passed by any utility your argument had and have shifted into the personal realm.NWR had his own problems. I'm not talking to nwr so what does it matter what they were?I don't believe that he was as bad as you made out. In any case his final position (ad hoc or otherwise) was valid and did not allow him to advance anything so it should have ended there. Pursuing the luminous aether issue (to my mind) shows you totally missing the point on what he was using it for.Frankly I don't need an apology from you or him on what happened. I've been in reasonably worse (length and hostility) fiascos, so I can't wag a finger at you for that.The point from this to me is what can we learn about how posters treat posters and how admins treat posters? Well that would be the double standard I am discussing. This is where creos have had a point. They are savaged for points of fact they may be errant on, yet most evos would be just as errant if called into question on the same things. I've seen enough total bs getting stated as "science" and "logic" by evos around here, that do not get questioned simply because they are supporting some "evo" position.In this case you had an evo discussing his personal opinion that he doesn't know something regarding BB, he has a doubt, and he gets savaged... as if that is supposed to convince him or anyone else that they should know? That you know?Perhaps a bit more civility and realism could emerge in the handling of others, especially on points of opposing OPINION. Perhaps we could look more into correcting flawed info or logic on all sides, rather than killing whatever states something out of step with evo and classic liberal positions?Hmmm... gotta go back to real life now, so I'm ending this post here.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm not getting into a psychoanalysis of other posters on this. I thought it was strange for him to make such a request (I'm assuming you mean in the public admin moderation thread) for quite different reasons and said so, but to my mind he could very well have felt you were not acting appropriately. No. It was merely meant as an example. If it was a bad example, or his facts were not completely straight on that example, that really doesn't effect the argument he was making... unless of course the point required that example and could use no other.At that point you were missing the forest because a tree with an infestation absorbed all your attention.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well I'm not asking him to step aside, but I do think its a sad day when people claim that Percy's actions were attempting to promote discussion in a rational and scientific way. Or that people who disagree he was doing so are wrong.It seems to me that the most rational and scientific position would have been to drop it once nwr explained it was only a personal opinion, based on a lack of knowledge, and then proceeded to demonstrate a lack of knowledge.That would have been his first explanation post, or the one which reopened discussion. Dragging him through the coals on any and all statements didn't make much sense. I had not read that before, but it appears different in that he did not seem to be offering just an opinon, but rather an actual argument. Boy that first step was a doozy. If this occured before the latest thread, perhaps he had learned some of his lesson and stated up front it is just an opinion.In any case that he keeps falling back to a possible failsafe position does not remove that position's utility. Once he retreats there, it should end. He has lost all weight in the argument. What more needs to be said.And Percy certainly did misuse the aether issue, as it was not critical to the point he was making. Your post here seems to support the idea that it should have been understood in that light.I think I've thrown enough 2 cent pieces into the suggestion well, so I guess I'll leave it there. Edited by holmes, : fix

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I thought it was over, but here comes some more loose change... Well obviously I wasn't privvy to that. Again I would have issues with that, as much as for his public request. To be certain I have never argued YOU are the only one at fault here. Its just you are the one I am talking to.I'm a bit perplexed at the "omni obliged" comment, as well as what appears at the end of your post to be some sort of conspiracy theory building. I'm not an admin recruited by jar, I have my own issues with nwr and jar, and yet I appear to be reaching a similar conclusion (except for not leaving). While I would disagree with nwr's private review of crash's post (crash did have some valid points to make), I think Omni's public reply to it was accurate overall.Indeed why shouldn't anyone notice that crash was defending you, and now you seem to be coming to his rescue to squish a bit on Omni?One person who has not been mentioned in all of this is moose, who said he was going to suspend you because he thought your actions were errant. Is he part of this conspiracy as well? What about modulous who seems to disagree with you? Archer? How vast is this connection?And indeed what happened to that suspension? Did it happen, and if not why not? Was there an intervention and by whom?Heheheh... I'm really not that wound up, but that seems to be where you are going in order to blacken the records of those who disagreed with you. Buddy, you shut me down with a threatened suspension when I questioned your decision.While I can agree with most of the idealistic commentary you put in this post, it is my opinion that you don't live up to that ideal. And some of your desires seem a bit less than realistic.It will be interesting to see if you begin to match these ideals.In all of this, you did not discuss how arguing the person should not be tolerated within any attack on a position. It seems to me a couple people noted that was an issue within your posts to nwr, and that sure as heck goes for what your defender has been posting around evc these days (including regarding nwr).Its always easy to describe opponents as thin-skinned, but that sure is a conveniently arbitrary estimate. If personal attacks are to be allowed perhaps you should describe how thick a person's skin is supposed to be when posting here.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Guess the smack down meant more to me than you. I'm past it (it was a while ago) so we don't have to relive it again, and as you admit you don't live up to your ideals, lets just leave it at that.The more important question is if what you say will be true from this day forward? I hope so. Do you remember telling me how mods have the final authority and that authority should be respected? That included NOT questioning why a decision was made as well as pointing to what was done wrong. I believe you also commented that it doesn't matter who was worse. As I mentioned before, both you and nwr in this situation ended up doing things you both criticized me for doing in the past.In this case I am not about to go back through the thread and point out where I think you personally insulted him. Reading through it three times was enough and I am much more interested in results springing from it, than by rehashing everything. Uh... I explained it upthread. Indeed I believe I stated that I disagreed with his epistemic position so I am not the person to carry the flag for it. Here is what I think IS valid (using what has already been stated here)...I pointed to his opening comments were that it was pure opinion, that he was not intending to challenge BB, and he admitted a lack of knowledge. And his "reopening" comments were an argument that he was not accepting BB personally, due to his not feeling it had enough evidence such that he could be confident it would stand the test of time as a full explanation.There would be severe problems if he used that to open and advance that BB was errant, or that he was able to reject BB. But he didn't do that. Lack of acceptance is NOT rejection. It is holding it in a more tentative state than others might. Rejection would mean its lack of recognition for having any possible merit.That he had incorrect ideas about the nature of evidence (which you did show) is besides the point to that position. If I had been you I would have made sure he restated it was just his opinion, that he wasn't stating BB wasn't science, and he wasn't trying to refute BB, and then dropped it myself.But you appeared to want to make him a scarecrow, picking away at any possible errors where he admitted less than adequate knowledge. He stated up front that he had NO case. I'm not sure how that could not be more clear. Whether he went on to show ignorance regarding the field as a reason for holding it more tentatively means nothing.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Fine. I'm much more concerned about what comes out of this. Okay, but then doesn't it make sense not to pursue such positions, rather than treating them as if they could be? I suppose from now on when a person states that its just an opinion, they should be warned not to continue because its a forum violation.That said I am still perplexed. Your position seems to only allow a person to accept a theory or reject it, and not claim remaining neutral pending more info? Nor apparently is someone allowed to doubt the longterm explanatory power of a theory? That is there must be some concrete reason for this doubt?Let's say this forum was run way back before heliocentrism had its conclusive support, or say plate tectonics before conclusive sea floor info. Am I correct in understanding a poster could not have said they doubt that geocentrism or stationary continents were the correct (or full) explanations? I can't tell you what you've made legal, I can only tell you what is logically valid. The two don't have to be the same, but it might surprise some to find out they aren't. This isn't to say you should change your intent or rule. I can work within that system if that's how you want it. In debate, do not state any personal opinions, or attempt to explain such. All statements should involve arguments that advance or attack a position, which are themselves open to attack via logic or evidence.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well that's not quite accurate, and I have already pointed that out. There are many types of opinions, and sometimes there is no evidence required to hold them. The only IMPORTANT opinions, the ones where debate is reasonable for any party, are the ones being advanced as statements of knowledge or fact.You seem to have avoided (for the second time) my bringing up heliocentrism/geocentrism. That is a case where opinion is all anyone had to go on. Efficacy was not the same as explanatory power. If you are not willing to admit this distinction is real, then It seems you are advancing an opinion with little merit and avoiding debate on it.Now I am fine with you stating that all you want discussed are statements of knowledge or fact, but then I am uncertain how anyone is going to communicate anything regarding the cutting edges of any discipline. If such tentativity or opinions are allowed in ordert to discuss those issues, I am unsure how one can block personal discussion of noncutting edge issues.Personally I do not find much interest in debating mere opinion, and I have a pretty clear record of dropping any further discussion when it hits that level. That paraphrase is inaccurate. Something he appeared to try and tell you at the time, and I have been trying to tell you here. I can see why you would (for some of those issues) consider it sending mixed messages. You say "at best", but I would say "at worst" you can say he was doing such. Let's break it down... That's it. That's end of discussion. Its an opinion not being advanced as knowledge. I would add that your paraphrase conveniently leaves out the fact that he said he has not read everything and if he wanted to attack BB he'd have to read all that stuff. That's a big but, and you are the one putting it in there. Two pieces of evidence he used to support his admittedly uninformed opinion. That they ended up being wrong only highlights his original statement that he was uninformed. To be CERTAIN, you were absolutely correct in refuting these errors. They were factual statements and so open to criticism. I think this does not belong with the others. It may be a statement of fact that can be refuted, but it does not tie into an explanation for why he feels evidence is not compelling enough for him to accept BB. I think it is very clear he was not saying "because the theory of luminous aether was better verified etc, I have a reason (lack of sufficent evidence) not to accept it." That is what he WAS saying with the others, not with this. Not exactly. His statements of fact were open to question, his statement of opinion was not. And more to the point I don't understand why anyone would want to question the latter. He did not deny its utility or status as best scientific theory on the subject, nor did he offer anything other than "I don't know".That sounds valid, accurate, and allows you to move on to those who are opposing the BB theory. Remember I agreed with your specific knocking down of the factual errors he made, so that is not the issue.Also remember, I don't mind going for the jugular on an error. The problem is if one ends up going for the jugular of a strawman, and somewhere in the process the jugular of the person stating the opinion (and by this I am not just meaning insults, but tearing down the individual by overemphasizing the error). I thought that was in there, but I'll give it another go...All statements should be arguments which advance or attack a position, and that are themselves open to attack via logic or evidence. Do not post opinions based entirely on personal feelings, suspicions, and/or something one does not want debated because they are private and so felt beyond question.I will note in advance that this might have some problems in any faith related topic as well as any morality/ethics related topics. And I'm still curious how you intend to allow discussion on cutting edge issues in science.But the only solid problem for me is that you still appear to be disallowing statements such as "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I have some doubts". Those are all valid as opinion and as far as I can tell legitimately beyond question.Edited by holmes, : opinions

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I realized something after I wrote the above, and this is a bit more "spicy" of an issue anyway, so I am writing it separately.You have been explaining how you want only explanations of opinion that can be attacked and supported with evidence. I have been arguing that there are some cases of opinion where evidence will not be enough to solve the dilemma of what to believe, what to accept.Let's take a look at what you have said here... & Contrary to your claim to not wanting pure opinion, that IS pure opinion on your part. Many have reviewed the evidence and have come to different conclusions. It appears that YOUR opinion dominates or is in some way MORE in line with evidence?If you feel that is true then you are trying to sneak crap in under your own radar. We are all using the same evidence and explaining from our vantage points how we interpret it. That you don't like such an interpretation is a nonplus. Indeed you keep ignoring some of the "evidence" I present to you on that issue.I think it is safe to say that some will be of the opinion nwr was trying to have his cake and eat it too, while others will think he was not advancing a position and so you took him out of context in your replies, and others will say they don't know. Aren't these all validly stated opinions stemming from the same evidence, yet deadlocked?But that is just the case of equal evidence leading to opinions decided validly by a somewhat gut reaction (though of course I still feel mine is more valid than yours). What about advancing an opinion with absolutely no evidentiary support beyond innuendo, which is pure emotion? & Or what about advancing an opinion in a way that pretends to be neutral but offers evidence at the same time?... You told me to drop stating my opinion about your insulting nwr unless I was going to bring up evidence. What on earth is that above? "I have no evidence, BUT here's my innuendo."I'm particularly disturbed by the way you cast down other people's opinions which have equal validity to the evidence at hand, as well as moving to blacken the names of others without any evidence besides your opinion.My opinion is that nwr would never have been hit so hard except that he expressed a personal doubt that you don't like, that if he had expressed a personal faith he would have been given a free pass despite having no evidence, and that all the other posters you are treating like idiots or conspirators would be getting your full support and commendation except that they decided against you.I'd be more impressed with your claim for how you want this place to run, if you held all opinions to the same measure of critical evaluation, and admit your accusations are a matter of personal opinion which shouldn't have been made and will not be made again.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Uh... I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm not interested in a fight. In this specific post you are replying to I ended on an observation that you appear to be insulting people either directly or through innuendo via opinions which cannot be questioned. And I do not like it, particularly when it seems to conflict with the code others should obey.You said your words were open to criticism, that is what I did. If criticism is now considered "picking a fight", I guess I would like some criteria on what is allowed. Although I realize that could sound sarcastic, it is meant honestly. How does one distinguish between criticism and picking a fight?In any case the heated portion was application and example of a rule set (and possible problems with it). The post previous to this was more important. From what follows it does not appear you read and/or understood what I was driving at. I am also not interested in a game of semantics. We do not need to be talking past each other on this. Let me define what I am talking about...From my own background there is a distinction between opinions which carry weight in an argument and those which do not.The former can be called "mere" or "personal" opinion and are related to subjective impressions such as taste and "gut" feelings. Though some evidence (in fact quite a bit) may be used to sway that kind of opinion, it ultimately hinges on the subjective impression rather than conclusive ability of evidence (or logic).The latter can also be called an opinion, but they are more conveniently identified as a claim of knowledge. These have weight in that conclusions can be argued to convince another, as well as be attacked. They hinge on the combination of logic and evidence, and preferably nothing to do with subjective impression.You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as the former category, that all opinions boil down to and hinge on logic and evidence, but that seems patently absurd. Again "Strawberries taste great" hinges on no logic and evidence (beyond subjective impression). Likewise confidence in and acceptance of something is ultimately a subjective state. You can agree that all the facts point to X, but still not be confident that X is ultimately true.In some cases there are competing theories (opinions if you want) that have equal evidentiary support. That leaves MERE opinion, subjective impression, to be the deciding factor. You continue to dodge the helio/geo example on that point. Was there or was there not a time where there was not adequate evidence supporting heliocentric theory such that geocentric theory was more supported and later equally supported by evidence? Weren't the people choosing to look beyond geocentric theory doing so based on a gut factor, a hesitation to accept geocentrism which had nothing to do with evidence?How about plate tectonics? How could such a debate as it stood in the 50s and 60s survived here? There was no definitive position in that debate. It needed more evidence to make the call in a definitive way, as a statement of knowledge.In the case of BB theory, one can easily use the rather limited immediate knowledge we have of the universe (as a whole) to generate a gut reaction that while it is clearly the best description we have so far, that it is not something one is confident will remain such. A person could theoretically demand that we need an almost omniscient point of view before that gut reaction changes. There is no logical problem with that. It is about FEELING and not STATE OF KNOWLEDGE. That has no connection to my position or definitions at all. Hopefully the above discussion clarified where the miscommunication is occuring.In my jargon... nwr was stating a mere opinion about the BB in general. You took some of his claims of knowledge (regarding state of evidence about BB) to mean his overall point was a claim to knowledge. You accurately used further claims to knowledge to rebut his claims. Unfortunately you continued to attack everything as if it was logically open to challenge. His mere opinion is not.That is certainly why I have no interest in arguing against them, and likely why you would not want to see them occuring on a debate forum. It just seems strange to argue that there are no such things, that all opinions actually hinge on some level of evidence that can be argued against. Consideration by whom? You asked him to explain a statement he made. He then prefaced that explanation with a clear statement: it was just an opinion, that that opinion was not based on full information, that he was not attempting to refute BB theory (which is to my mind saying "not for consideration"), and that if he did want to do such he'd have to look at more info.The only thing he advanced "for consideration" was a certain state of evidence regarding BB that helped form his gut reaction. But it was not "X is why BB should not be believed". It was a description of how it was not complete enough for him. That he was errant about that evidence (which again you rightly criticized) does not necessarily effect his overall state of confidence, and so his MERE OPINION. The fact that his errancy pointed up his original claim to lack of knowledge only shows that he was damn right. His knowledge could not be used to refute BB.And nowher did he say that BB was not a scientific theory, that it was not the best and most coherent theory we have, and that he knew of some other theory and was unwilling to believe BB would ever match it. All he said is that he wasn't satisfied ENOUGH with the state of evidence for BB to accept it at this time. Lack of acceptance =/= rejection.Edited by holmes, : eh

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)