Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
47 online now:
ICANT, nwr, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 881,976 Year: 13,724/23,288 Month: 242/412 Week: 29/40 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)
Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 6 of 106 (458937)
03-02-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rob
03-02-2008 6:16 PM


Re: Not much of an opening message, but...
Rob writes:

Actually I respect Straggler and though I didn't intend for it to be a great debate, I have to admit that it would be nice not to have certain others who cannot concede a single point.

If you have complaints of this nature please keep them out of the discussion threads. They belong over at Windsor castle.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rob, posted 03-02-2008 6:16 PM Rob has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 8 of 106 (459139)
03-04-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rob
03-04-2008 2:21 AM


Re: Wasn't Expecting a 1 on 1 but OK Then
Rob writes:

And whether we are willing to test it honestly depends upon whether or not we want it to be true.

Let's leave issues of honesty aside. If at the end of the day the participants in this discussion, their position having failed to carry the day, merely claim the other side wasn't being honest, then there's no point to this discussion. Proper substitutes would be terms like objectively, accurately, rationally, logically, etc.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rob, posted 03-04-2008 2:21 AM Rob has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 14 of 106 (459333)
03-05-2008 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rob
03-05-2008 8:42 PM


Re: Wasn't Expecting a 1 on 1 but OK Then
Please just post a link. If you would like something made available at the EvC website, please email it to me at Admin and I will post it so you can link to it in messages.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rob, posted 03-05-2008 8:42 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rob, posted 03-05-2008 10:40 PM Admin has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 31 of 106 (459551)
03-08-2008 2:11 PM


A Little Moderator Guidance
I take seriously my responsibility to maintain a high level of quality in the science forums, so I feel I have to step in.

When two people involved in a discussion get so into it that it is difficult for others to follow, that's regrettable but probably can't be helped. But when there's a two person discussion that not even the participants understand, then it's time to step in.

I understand the purpose of this thread to be for Rob to explain his ideas about the nature of science to Straggler in a way that can be comprehended and understood. In such an endeavor both sides have a responsibility, in this case for Rob to present his ideas clearly, and for Straggler to provide insight and feedback about those ideas, as well as helping Rob at crafting clear explanations of any points or line of reasoning.

I've read Rob's piece (Science is the application of the Law of Contradiction). Rob seems to believe that his conception of science is rational and explained clearly, and he can't understand why Straggler is having difficulty understanding the ideas. My own assessment is that it contains the naive ideas of someone with little to no scientific experience, and that Rob should take this as an opportunity to improve it by giving it substance and clarity.

Rob's piece is actually excellent through the first four paragraphs, but then it completely falls apart in the fifth and never recovers. That paragraph opens like this:

That is fascinating since coherence is both the authority that founds science, and the revelation given by the scientific method.

Coherence is the authority that founds science?

And coherence is the revelation provided by the scientific method?

This is just gobbledygook to me, and unless Rob can begin clearly explaining what look like at best nebulous ideas and at worst nonsense, I can't see this thread making any progress. His piece gets worse further on where he begins talking about God and tearing into methodological naturalism.

Sorry to throw everything on you, Rob, but they're your ideas, and you have to help people understand them before they can be discussed. Just telling people how clear and simple your ideas are isn't going to accomplish this.

And Straggler, a sorry for you, too. I know you didn't ask for this, but hang in there. Let me know if I can provide any additional help, or if this isn't actually helpful let me know that, too, though like I said, I feel I have a responsibility to keep discussion, if you'll forgive the word, coherent.

And another sorry for you Rob. I know it must seem to you like moderation is taking sides, but science does already have a definition, you know. I'm not siding with science but with rationality by not defining our words to mean whatever we want them to mean. I'd side with the Christians if some evolutionist started trying to redefine Christianity (actually, I did side with the Christians when Jar and Ringo attempted this a couple years ago, claiming that evangelicalism did not include the concept of original sin). I think you'd be much better served arguing that science is misconstrued as currently constructed, rather than arguing that it is something it very clearly is not.

Edited by Admin, : Minor correction.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 5:12 PM Admin has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 34 of 106 (459584)
03-08-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Straggler
03-08-2008 5:12 PM


Re: A Little Moderator Guidance
The approach you originally outlined for yourself seems fine, but it takes two to tango. Rob has to be willing to explore his ideas with you. Maybe Rob has some ideas of his own about how to proceed from here, we'll wait and see.

By the way, Rob's position has a parallel in the history of science, if I understand what he's saying (which is definitely an iffy proposition). It was at one time believed that the proper practice of science should refrain from examining the natural world and should instead employ reflection and logic to figure out the world's true nature. Maybe it was a branch of Greek thought?

Edited by Admin, : Fix typos.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 5:12 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 6:19 PM Admin has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 37 of 106 (459648)
03-09-2008 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rob
03-08-2008 6:19 PM


Re: A Little Moderator Guidance
Hi Rob,

As you know, I object to the promotion of nonsense here at EvC Forum, hence I'm going to respond to a couple things you say.

I am very pleased with the results here...My work is done here.

Are you daft? This thread is unintelligible.

And I see no need to force you to agree, or base the credibility of my proposition upon your ability/inability to comprehend the matter.

The power of one's ideas is not governed by the determination with which they are held but by their ability to persuade others, and to do that one must first render them intelligible to others. You've accomplished neither intelligibility nor persuasion.

I suggest you return and work in a sincere fashion to mold your ideas into intelligible form.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 6:19 PM Rob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2008 12:42 PM Admin has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 67 of 106 (460275)
03-13-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rob
03-13-2008 7:44 PM


Re: Straggler proves it!
I'm poking my nose in again, this time because I see a strong disconnect between Straggler's posts and your responses. I think Straggler's idea of an example of how you would apply your methodology is a good one. You could use Straggler's wall outlet example or create your own.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 7:44 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 8:33 PM Admin has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 69 of 106 (460284)
03-13-2008 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rob
03-13-2008 8:33 PM


Re: Straggler proves it!
Okay, let's let Straggler have a look at your example.

Rob writes:

I thought Straggler was doing fine Percy. He proved my thesis to be correct.

It isn't what you think of how you're doing that counts, but how others think you're doing. Most of your contributions here have been unintelligible, and why you think you're doing so well is I'm sure a mystery to everyone. This is already the second time in this thread where you've become reluctant to engage the discussion, and if you stop now I don't think anyone will have any idea what you've been on about. Anyway, please quit quitting, quit declaring how wonderful you're doing, and start focusing on the discussion.

Please, no replies to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 8:33 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 9:20 PM Admin has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 71 of 106 (460335)
03-14-2008 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rob
03-13-2008 9:20 PM


Re: Straggler proves it!
Well, Rob, I guess this is goodbye again for another 24 hours. Next time when I say, "Please, no replies," assume I mean it.

I am moderating this discussion, not participating.

About this:

I said I thought Straggler was doing fine. I've never said that I am doing fine.

What you said in Message 70 was:

Rob in Message 68 writes:

I thought Straggler was doing fine Percy. He proved my thesis to be correct.

That's sarcasm, Rob, not praise. I'm adding another 24 hours to your suspension.

When you return please constructively engage the discussion.

AbE: Please, no replies to this message.

Edited by Admin, : Add request for no replies.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 9:20 PM Rob has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 73 of 106 (460357)
03-14-2008 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rob
03-13-2008 9:20 PM


Re: Straggler proves it!
Hi Rob,

This is the second time you've made yourself inactive in this discussion. It isn't right to engage someone's effort and attention and then turn your back. Twice. I'll wait a couple days for you to restore yourself to active status and resume the discussion, after which I'll make the suspension permanent.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rob, posted 03-13-2008 9:20 PM Rob has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 76 of 106 (460513)
03-15-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Straggler
03-15-2008 7:39 PM


Re: Refutation II - Logical Coherence RIP
If Rob decides to reengage the discussion I think that he should be permitted the opportunity to provide an illustration of how he would apply his definition of science, but using an example where the conclusions are obvious to everyone. Your power outlet example was of just this nature, since no matter how you approached the problem, once all the evidence was available the conclusion was eminently sensible.

By using an example with an obvious outcome Rob should be able to highlight his definition of science and not have it overshadowed by some controversial topic. One interpretation of your most recent rebuttal is that it showed Rob's conclusions about intelligent design wrong, but not necessarily Rob's proposed definition of science.

It is in everyone's best interest to have the best method possible for figuring out the nature of the universe. We should all be on the same side.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 03-15-2008 7:39 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Straggler, posted 03-16-2008 7:29 AM Admin has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 82 of 106 (460550)
03-16-2008 2:30 PM


Guys, lets get on-topic.

To Rob:

No Bible quoting. This is a science thread.

You said you were going to provide an example as per my request, but there was no example, just more argument. You don't have to use Straggler's power outlet example, but you should use something equally simple with an equally obvious outcome so that it is your scientific process that is the focus and not the example itself.

To Straggler:

Let's keep it civil and impersonal.

To you both:

Please, no replies to this message.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Rob, posted 03-16-2008 4:20 PM Admin has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 94 of 106 (460571)
03-16-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rob
03-16-2008 4:20 PM


Rob writes:

I don't need to be here. But you need me to be...

Really. Interesting. See you in a week.

AbE: If you go inactive again it'll become permanent.

Edited by Admin, : Add comment.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rob, posted 03-16-2008 4:20 PM Rob has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 98 of 106 (461237)
03-23-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Rob
03-23-2008 5:57 PM


Re: You must understand logic to understand metaphors and parables
Interesting. You just posted a link to a Bible study webpage in a science discussion in which the moderator, myself, has requested you not mix science and religion, and in which you've just returned from a one week suspension for doing the same thing.

See you in four weeks.

If and when you return, would you please post a simple example with obvious conclusions that illustrates your approach to science and how it differs from the standard definition.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Rob, posted 03-23-2008 5:57 PM Rob has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 101 of 106 (461602)
03-26-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Ken
03-26-2008 3:19 PM


Re: Last Chance Saloon, 631 hours early
Hi Ken,

This is a 2-person debate between Straggler and Rob. Rob has been temporarily suspended for persistent violations of the Forum Guidelines. Posting for him in a restricted thread is also a violation of the Forum Guidelines.

You and Rob are now both permanently suspended.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Ken, posted 03-26-2008 3:19 PM Ken has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020