Jump to content

David Paszkiewicz's idea of science


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
On the other hand, they’re offering “a thrilling ride billions of light years away to the vast outer regions of our universe,” obviously unaware that for us to see light that is “billions of light years away,” the universe would have to be billions of years old. They’re too ignorant and scientifically illiterate to realize that their own web site contradicts their core premise. See http://creationmuseum.org/about/ under “Theatre Excitement.”

That proves God exists and also proves our limits as human beings.

Naturally we have light that was billions of light years away even though the universe is thousands of years old. With God anything is possible, including these types of inconsistencies which He has allowed. This has been willed by Him and what is willed by Him, must be.

It is our limited human intellect that has problems understanding the above facts. It is not His fault that atheistic and godless scientists cannot understand. Having given us free will, He will not force the unbelievers to the truth.

I strongly suggest that you go to Mr P's religion classes. He is very nice and open and will help you to understand.

God Bless you and God Bless America - Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, please. The scientific method is the reason we're able to have this discussion. It has more than proved itself.

So is that your way of hand waving uniformitarian assumption or what?

The so-called Anthropic Principle, whichever version you're arguing for, is your proposal. You define how it's useful.

I gave an example of how it is useful. Some "Guest" claimed that it could not be useful, so isn't it up to that person to support his claims with respect to the counterexample? If we take away that responsibility from the other person, then what does it mean to claim that a method is "useful" as opposed to non-useful? Shall I define the other person's terms for them?

Typical Bryan. Make an argument, then make the other person responsible for it.

So who's responsible for the argument/claim that propositions like the Anthropic Principle do not count as evidence, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, Bryan, that’s a tough one.

Maybe it’s the way they condition the kids to think their real teachers don’t know what they’re doing. http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2338.html

Well, that can't be it, since Paul LaClair has attacked a teacher for not knowing what he's doing and you didn't call him anti-science.

And the way they denigrate reason. http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2331.html

"Human reason" is Christianese for human error dressed as wisdom. But the confusion is understandable on your part. I'd say it is unwise for the museum to use that terminology unless they wish to restrict their message purely to Christians.

And the way they discard science in favor of a fairy tale (make sure you call it “God’s word,” then you can believe any nonsense you like). http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2334.html

If science is discarded then why is it even included in the presentation? Does the fine print indicating overt rejection of the left-hand model merely fail to show because of insufficient resolution in the photo? Or are you just making that part up?

And the way they just dismiss everything we know about the age of the universe. http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2337.html

I see no dismissing in the slide to which you refer. Is it again a failure of the photographic resolution? Or are you making it up?

On the other hand, they’re offering “a thrilling ride billions of light years away to the vast outer regions of our universe,” obviously unaware that for us to see light that is “billions of light years away,” the universe would have to be billions of years old.

On the contrary, the website states that the they explicitly address the problem of visible light from distant stars. So in this case you're definitely just making it up as you go. Why are you doing that?

They’re too ignorant and scientifically illiterate to realize that their own web site contradicts their core premise. See http://creationmuseum.org/about/ under “Theatre Excitement.”

Your claim is unscientific, resulting from a careless assessment of the museum. So you're anti-science, right?

And the way they use wild generalizations to support their prejudices. http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2343.html

What supposed "wild generalizations" do you detect in that image?

And the way they go right straight at the really tough arguments. (You got us there!) http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2403.html

Not that I agree that humans and dinosaurs overlap chronologically, but that really is a pretty good answer for the assertion that human and dinosaur bones are not buried together. And one might think that some credit accrues for noting that human and dinosaur bones have not been found together. Or do you find that claim false?

And the way they don’t bother explaining anything. http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2411.html

I don't know why you would assert that crediting the Genesis flood with burying fossil remains doesn't count as an explanation. It might be the wrong explanation, but how does one go about discounting it as an explanation without intellectual dishonesty?

You sure stumped me there, Bryan.

You did seem to have quite a bit of trouble coming up with evidences of "anti-science" without embroidering the facts, when it comes to that.

No, it’s at least as bad as he says it is. They’re conditioning the kids how not to think rationally; to base beliefs on wishes instead of on facts.

It's interesting that you say that after having failed to provide any clear example in support. It is almost as though you describe your own behavior.

There is nothing in the slides to which you've referred that accounts for saying that the museum teaches kids to base beliefs on wishes instead of on facts. If that were the case, then there should be something that we could suitably use to take our wish for $1 million as possessing $1 million or the like. It seems that the actual case is that the museum deals in particulars with with you disagree, and by using your own classification of those particulars as wishful thinking, you then characterize the epistemological approach as you do. Your method makes a fine example of a prejudiced approach.

You’re right, though, we do all condition our children, but there’s a difference between conditioning them to think clearly and logically and based on the evidence, versus conditioning them to indulge themselves in wishes and fantasies and call it truth.

But you can't simply trade one assertion for the other, for they are different assertions. Conditioning children does not make the museum anti-science. You allow that we all condition our children to some degree. So that puts you back to trying to find the anti-science content in the slides. Your problem here, as noted above, is that you're just taking the things with which you disagree as serving to evidence an anti-scientific attitude. That isn't good enough, is it?

I suppose you’ll want an explanation why one is better than the other.

Not at all. I'm not a YEC, after all. You simply need to back the assertion that the museum is anti-science rather than simply wrong here and there. And pointing to slides that compare "Human wisdom" with "God's Word" doesn't seem to do the trick. Couldn't an atheists' museum put up that same exhibit in many cases? It seems at worst we'd end up with disagreements over what "God's Word" actually says, leaving aside the fact that "Human reason" account might also cause controversy among scientists.

After all, fairy tales are as real as science, right. We could as easily have hired Tinkerbell to put men on the moon as spend all that money on scientists and rockets and stuff like that. I guess I'm not just in your league, Bryan.

You definitely win the Straw Man award. I can't compete with that one.

You aren't accusing the museum of being YEC. You're accusing it of being anti-science. Is there no distinction to be made between one and the other?

You're guilty of the fallacy of a false choice.

Baloney. I'd be presenting you with a false dilemma if I claimed that something must be either YEC or anti-science and not both. If you think that's what I did based on what I wrote above then I recommend some remedial English classes for you. I simply asked you whether there was a distinction between YEC and anti-science.

The Ignorance Emporium is both YEC and anti-science; it can't be YEC without being anti-science. So yes, there's a distinction: YEC is one form of anti-scientism.

So you say, but isn't it incumbent on you to explain why YEC is anti-science without making is so via definition with no argument? You know, so you don't end up with the logical fallacy of begging the question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That proposition is self-refuting, for it asserts that it is true that all theories and other truth claims are subject to revision or rejection except for that claim itself.

You're anti-science, then, according to your own measure. :D

Great, I'm glad I didn't have to point that out to you. Regardless, AIG is no more anti-science than you are by the measure you stated at the outset.

1) Using the Bible as the final guide to interpretation of scripture does not mean that all evidence that contradicts the Bible is to be discarded and ignored. Rather, it means that no evidence is to be regarded as truly contradictory. Though that statement itself is probably best regarded as a type of hyperbole. After all, the apostle Paul freely stated that absent the reality of a risen Christ his faith was brought to nothing. Taken in that context, the statement simply means that the Bible receives the benefit of the doubt in weighing evidences.

2) "Alpha and Omega" is typically used as a title for the supreme being rather than as a description of the Bible by believers. It is fair to note a faint parallel between using the Bible to interpret itself in terms of evidences with the statement "first and last" ... but that's about it. I'll bet if I asked a leader of the Bible club about the name, they would say it refers to God.

And as noted, that puts them approximately as anti-science as you (by your own measure).

I find it literally hilarious that you appeal to court proceedings, which do not follow the scientific method and in practically the same breath appeal to the standing of evidences in terms of science. Science and law derive their handling of evidences from philosophy, and unattributed writings are evidence in that realm. Your doubletalk will not make it otherwise.

Coincidentally the same thing you did at the outset, you little anti-science "Guest."

Agreed, and not too different by analogy from your view of science with respect to its relationship to philosophy.

Your conclusion does not follow from the argument that precedes it.

Typical Bryan nonsense.

The scientific method does not contradict itself. But since Bryan is belongs to the niggling school of pseudo-philosophy, and knows nothing about science, he doesn’t understand that science is as more an attitude and an approach to things than a set of rigid rules, much less absolute ones. Science walks a balance between principle and practicality. Hard-core Christian fundamentalism, a la the Creationist Ignorance Emporium, doesn’t attempt to balance anything.

The Apostle Paul, who was no model of moderation in his own right, didn’t design the Creationist Ignorance Emporium. It was designed by hard-core wack-jobs who can’t tell the difference between an honest intellectual idea and a self-serving fantasy.

When you add it all up, Bryan wants to equate science and young-earth creationism. That tells you all you need to know about Bryan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That proves God exists and also proves our limits as human beings.

Naturally we have light that was billions of light years away even though the universe is thousands of years old. With God anything is possible, including these types of inconsistencies which He has allowed. This has been willed by Him and what is willed by Him, must be.

It is our limited human intellect that has problems understanding the above facts. It is not His fault that atheistic and godless scientists cannot understand. Having given us free will, He will not force the unbelievers to the truth.

I strongly suggest that you go to Mr P's religion classes. He is very nice and open and will help you to understand.

God Bless you and God Bless America - Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Why, of course! Why didn’t I see that before?!

If a Muslim or a Buddhist or an atheist has a point of view, that can be discarded.

But if a wack-job Christian has a point of view, it makes perfect sense. And if it doesn’t make any sense at all, that’s just proof that God doesn’t want it to make sense – whenever fundamentalist wack-jobs say it doesn’t make sense.

So in the end, fundamentalist wack-jobs are right and the rest of us are wrong. And that’s just how it is.

Just look at it this way: Fundamentalist Christian wack-jobs like Paszkiewicz are God.

Now why didn’t I see that?

Oh, and P.S., it's all about being a good American. :D:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So is that your way of hand waving uniformitarian assumption or what?

No, it's my way of telling you that science works. It's not an assumption but a proven fact, as evidenced by the fact that we're using this technology to have this discussion.

What doesn't work is trying to have a sane discussion with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Bryan, just because the scientific method includes a provisionality principle, it doesn’t follow that science contradicts itself. If your point was true, science couldn’t develop and apply theories. The point of provisionality is to point out that theories, while stated as rigid principles, are only approximations of the truth, and are therefore subject to change based on additional evidence.

You don’t seem to understand the interplay between theory and empiricism. Reasonable people do not hold stubbornly to absolutes, like an overly literal child on a playground who thinks he just bested everyone because someone let a word slip the wrong way before the game started.

You’re not stupid, Bryan. Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Not that I agree that humans and dinosaurs overlap chronologically, but that really is a pretty good answer for the assertion that human and dinosaur bones are not buried together. And one might think that some credit accrues for noting that human and dinosaur bones have not been found together. Or do you find that claim false?

Bryan, you know better than to make that argument. If someone you weren’t trying to defend offered the Ignorance Emporium’s non-explanation, you would quickly challenge them to supply evidence to support the underlying claim that they lived at the same time. All the scientific evidence says they did not, and it also says that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. You can’t defend the Ignorance Emporium’s anti-scientific approach by ignoring their method and their central claim. In order to be an explanation, the Ignorance Emporium’s claim would have to fit into the broader picture of known reality; it doesn’t. So why do you insist on defending it?

I don't know why you would assert that crediting the Genesis flood with burying fossil remains doesn't count as an explanation. It might be the wrong explanation, but how does one go about discounting it as an explanation without intellectual dishonesty?

Because it's not based on reality. An explanation has to be based on reality, or it's just an excuse. Besides, if it’s the wrong explanation, as you say, then why are you defending it?

You did seem to have quite a bit of trouble coming up with evidences of "anti-science" without embroidering the facts, when it comes to that.

That was the evidence, dimwit. :D

It's interesting that you say that after having failed to provide any clear example in support. It is almost as though you describe your own behavior.

There is nothing in the slides to which you've referred that accounts for saying that the museum teaches kids to base beliefs on wishes instead of on facts. If that were the case, then there should be something that we could suitably use to take our wish for $1 million as possessing $1 million or the like. It seems that the actual case is that the museum deals in particulars with with you disagree, and by using your own classification of those particulars as wishful thinking, you then characterize the epistemological approach as you do. Your method makes a fine example of a prejudiced approach.

But you can't simply trade one assertion for the other, for they are different assertions. Conditioning children does not make the museum anti-science. You allow that we all condition our children to some degree. So that puts you back to trying to find the anti-science content in the slides. Your problem here, as noted above, is that you're just taking the things with which you disagree as serving to evidence an anti-scientific attitude. That isn't good enough, is it?

You missed the point, Bryan. The Ignorance Emporium is anti-science because it conditions children to dismiss science in favor of biblical literalism, which is based on a wish to believe that The Bible is true. I don’t have to “try to find” anti-scientific content in the Ignorance Emporium. It’s obvious to anyone who understands science. Anyway, we’ve given you the explanation. Relying on a collection of ancient writings for scientific truth is not science, especially when one is doing it because that is what one wishes to believe. How many times do we have to write it?

Not at all. I'm not a YEC, after all. You simply need to back the assertion that the museum is anti-science rather than simply wrong here and there. And pointing to slides that compare "Human wisdom" with "God's Word" doesn't seem to do the trick. Couldn't an atheists' museum put up that same exhibit in many cases? It seems at worst we'd end up with disagreements over what "God's Word" actually says, leaving aside the fact that "Human reason" account might also cause controversy among scientists.

But atheists don’t put up exhibits like that, not if they’re consistent with a commitment to science. I don’t “need to” back it up when it speaks for itself.

You’re trying to defend something without considering its underlying method. Science is a method. The Creationist Ignorance Emporium’s method is anti-scientific throughout. It isn’t based on evidence. It’s based on an unsubstantiated claim that certain unattributed ancient writings are true. If you’re not a YEC, then why are you defending this slop?

So you say, but isn't it incumbent on you to explain why YEC is anti-science without making is so via definition with no argument? You know, so you don't end up with the logical fallacy of begging the question?

Not when it’s this obvious. Come on, Bryan. Drawing pseudo-scientific conclusions based on some unattributed ancient writings that were selected by a committee of theologians is not science. You know better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
"Human reason" is Christianese for human error dressed as wisdom. But the confusion is understandable on your part. I'd say it is unwise for the museum to use that terminology unless they wish to restrict their message purely to Christians.

Oh good, so knuckle-draggers are going to decide what parts of human reason are error. [http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2331.html ] They don’t bother to scrutinize their own “human reason” leading to the claim that The Bible is literally true. Why do you suppose they do it that way? Do you think they’re being objective?

If science is discarded then why is it even included in the presentation? Does the fine print indicating overt rejection of the left-hand model merely fail to show because of insufficient resolution in the photo? Or are you just making that part up?

They mention science to dismiss it. They don’t analyze it. They just claim that The Bible is true and science isn’t. They’re just feeding the biases of their audience. It’s a standard propaganda technique. http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2334.html

I see no dismissing in the slide to which you refer. Is it again a failure of the photographic resolution? Or are you making it up?

No, you just decided not to notice that they don’t account for the science that proves the universe is billions of years old. [http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2337.html] They dismiss that, without addressing it, in favor of biblical literalism. Apparently you’re so hell-bent on defending ignorance that you chose not to notice.

On the contrary, the website states that the they explicitly address the problem of visible light from distant stars. So in this case you're definitely just making it up as you go. Why are you doing that?

Oh, wow! Some scientifically illiterate knuckle-draggers claim to explain away our best science with simple-minded and unfounded claims derived not from objective evidence but from personal wish-fulfillment. Did you find their “explanation” persuasive, Bryan? Is it scientific? What do you think?

Your claim is unscientific, resulting from a careless assessment of the museum. So you're anti-science, right?

No. Your claim is ridiculous. So you’re ridiculous, right?

Come on, Bryan. The universe can’t be only 6,000 years old if we can see light from objects that are billions of light years away. Is this really too hard for you to figure out?

Besides, you're burden-shifting. I'm not running an ignorance emporium under the guise of a museum. Their conduct must rise or fall on its own.

What supposed "wild generalizations" do you detect in that image?

:D Look at it. http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2343.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So is that your way of hand waving uniformitarian assumption or what?

I gave an example of how it is useful. Some "Guest" claimed that it could not be useful, so isn't it up to that person to support his claims with respect to the counterexample? If we take away that responsibility from the other person, then what does it mean to claim that a method is "useful" as opposed to non-useful? Shall I define the other person's terms for them?

So who's responsible for the argument/claim that propositions like the Anthropic Principle do not count as evidence, then?

Bryan, none of us was born yesterday. Each of us has had a lifetime to evaluate science, philosophy, theology and other disciplines, quasi-disciplines and pseudo-disciplines. I look around the world and see a world transformed by science: from living in caves to living in temperature-controlled homes with a wealth of modern conveniences and amenities; from often dying young to living to old age with a decreasing percentage of exceptions. We owe all of that to science.

I also see a world transformed by various expressions of religion, from the very good to the utterly destructive. Young-earth creationism is destructive. It distorts the truth. You don't even believe it. Yet here you are defending it.

You have a peculiar approach to things. Most of us are not persuaded that your methods are sound. If you wish to make a case for them, feel free to do it. But you're not making your case stronger by the methods you're using. If you wish to make your case, you must make your case, not merely berate others for not approaching questions in the idiosyncratic manner you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I find it literally hilarious that you appeal to court proceedings, which do not follow the scientific method and in practically the same breath appeal to the standing of evidences in terms of science. Science and law derive their handling of evidences from philosophy, and unattributed writings are evidence in that realm. Your doubletalk will not make it otherwise.

What an idiot. Courts usually require testimony from witnesses who have actual knowledge of the matters on which they testify. Documents can be admitted, but only based on the criteria of reliability established by centuries of experience. The point is to admit only reasonably reliable evidence. To the extent that the courts sometimes use too loose a standard (as with "experts" who hide behind their qualifications to say ridiculous things), that is a failure in the legal system, which many people are working to correct. In no way does any failure in the legal system justify misinforming children based on no standards at all.

Bryan isn't engaging the point here. He's distorting it. The argument was that even the legal system has standards that the Creationist Ignorance Emporium wouldn't meet. It's no answer to say that the law sometimes falls short, when the Ignorance Museum isn't even minimally credible.

Science and law rely more on experience than on philosophy. Consistently, Bryan overlooks the practical and experiential side of life. He seems to think that life is lived based on rigid principles and not experience. So he consistently makes ridiculous claims that don't fit with human experience. Of course they don't. He doesn't think human experience is important: he rarely mentions it. No reasonable person lives that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That proposition is self-refuting, for it asserts that it is true that all theories and other truth claims are subject to revision or rejection except for that claim itself.

You're anti-science, then, according to your own measure.

No, dimwit. Provisionality is a rationale for a method. Science asserts that all warrantable claims are based on evidence. It follows that if the evidence warrants a change in theory, the evidence should be followed.

This is the manner by which science has advanced. If knuckle-draggers can demonstrate that their method works better, scientists will have no choice but to drag their own knuckles. But that hasn't happened, and I'll bet you it won't.

You should stay away from science, since you don't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an idiot. Courts usually require testimony from witnesses who have actual knowledge of the matters on which they testify. Documents can be admitted, but only based on the criteria of reliability established by centuries of experience. The point is to admit only reasonably reliable evidence. To the extent that the courts sometimes use too loose a standard (as with "experts" who hide behind their qualifications to say ridiculous things), that is a failure in the legal system, which many people are working to correct. In no way does any failure in the legal system justify misinforming children based on no standards at all.

So you had trouble grasping the point, then. Unattributed writings may count as evidence philosophically and logically. You'll want to keep avoiding that point in favor of pretending that I'm trying to justify misinforming children.

Bryan isn't engaging the point here. He's distorting it.

The argument was that even the legal system has standards that the Creationist Ignorance Emporium wouldn't meet. It's no answer to say that the law sometimes falls short, when the Ignorance Museum isn't even minimally credible.

My point is that legal standards and scientific standards are different, contrary to the implication of the earlier argument, and to clarify the point that philosophical (that is, logical) standards ultimately rule.

And that's distorting the point?

Science and law rely more on experience than on philosophy.

Maybe that's why both scientists and judicial systems so often end up with the wrong conclusions. :lol:

But we're not supposed to go there, are we? :lol:

Consistently, Bryan overlooks the practical and experiential side of life. He seems to think that life is lived based on rigid principles and not experience. So he consistently makes ridiculous claims that don't fit with human experience. Of course they don't. He doesn't think human experience is important: he rarely mentions it. No reasonable person lives that way.

Attacking a person instead of his argument is another stupid lawyer trick. You can't claim that something isn't evidence simply because scientific or legal systems might not regard it as such. Philosophy is the parent of those other disciples. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, dimwit. Provisionality is a rationale for a method. Science asserts that all warrantable claims are based on evidence.

Meh. Another one who can't see the obvious point. Is the claim that all warrantable claims are based on evidence itself based on evidence? It's self-refuting. Wake up and smell the coffee.

It follows that if the evidence warrants a change in theory, the evidence should be followed.

And that must include the supposedly foundational assertion from science that you offered up above. No?

This is the manner by which science has advanced.

And I shouldn't ask you why you're willing to accept the inconsistency?

If knuckle-draggers can demonstrate that their method works better, scientists will have no choice but to drag their own knuckles. But that hasn't happened, and I'll bet you it won't.

You should stay away from science, since you don't understand it.

And what evidence makes your conclusion a "warrantable" claim, Mr. Science?

That's your cue to clam up and hope nobody notices that you can't give an answer. Or just claim "It's obvious" in the hopes that nobody notices you can't come up with an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical Bryan nonsense.

Verily, it's amazing how many brave anonymous folks have come forward in this thread!

The scientific method does not contradict itself.

It is the supposedly foundational assumption one "Guest" presented that is self-refuting. There is no single "scientific method" and I'm sure that there are ways of expressing it in a manner that is not self-refuting. On the other hand, one hapless anonymous poster was not able to express it that way.

But since Bryan is belongs to the niggling school of pseudo-philosophy, and knows nothing about science, he doesn’t understand that science is as more an attitude and an approach to things than a set of rigid rules, much less absolute ones.

Heh. Ironically, that's exactly what I'm pointing out. I'm well aware that all Popperian criteria have exceptions and that there is no absolutely rigid scientific method. That is exactly what makes the "anti-science" charge so hard to back up. My knowledge of science, particularly the philosophy of science, makes me aware that people like you are unlikely to have much of a chance to back up that kind of charge. You make the charge simply because of a form of bigotry against those who don't have "an attitude and an approach" that agrees with yours--so even though you can't figure out how to make the "anti-science" charge stick by using reason, you can always say that you don't like that guy's attitude. Pretty empty if you ask me.

Science walks a balance between principle and practicality. Hard-core Christian fundamentalism, a la the Creationist Ignorance Emporium, doesn’t attempt to balance anything.

Right, so even if you don't have a prayer of describing logically and rationally what makes them anti-science, at least you can say that they don't possess the right attitude. No balance or whatever. Keep it nebulous enough so that you can't be expected to back it up with reason.

When you add it all up, Bryan wants to equate science and young-earth creationism. That tells you all you need to know about Bryan.

Those who are actually paying attention will see no such thing. Rather, they see those who ought to be proving their assertions that the museum (which presents a version of mainstream science alongside its preferred vision of origins) is anti-science hedging away from their own burden of proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scientific method is the reason we're able to have this discussion. It has more than proved itself.

So is that your way of hand waving uniformitarian assumption or what?

No, it's my way of telling you that science works.

Why would you bother to say that? Is that our topic? I brought up the fact that much of science is based on uniformitarian assumptions. So why shouldn't I conclude that you bring up "science works" as an excuse for uniformitarian assumptions? Should I simply have assumed that you were changing our topic?

It's not an assumption but a proven fact, as evidenced by the fact that we're using this technology to have this discussion.

Science does not prove anything. You'd know that if you know science. Science operates by falsifying. Theories that resist falsification are not proven (the epistemic process is inductive at best, generally referred to as "abductive") but accepted as the preferred explanations. When you claim proof you're stepping into the realm of logic and philosophy. Good luck with that.

What doesn't work is trying to have a sane discussion with you.

Perhaps you'd have better luck if you were sane. Study up on science and get back to me. Perhaps you can improve on this performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan, just because the scientific method includes a provisionality principle, it doesn’t follow that science contradicts itself.

Yes it does, unless one admits up front that the provisionality principle is provisional. It wasn't described that way to me.

If your point was true, science couldn’t develop and apply theories.

Sure it could. But the main point is that the "Guest" who insisted on the provisionality principle lacks a sure grasp on the philosophy of science.

The point of provisionality is to point out that theories, while stated as rigid principles, are only approximations of the truth, and are therefore subject to change based on additional evidence.

Great. It's really too bad that it wasn't described that way from the first, isn't it?

You don’t seem to understand the interplay between theory and empiricism.

I love it when you folks come forth with statements like that one. Very scientific. :lol:

Reasonable people do not hold stubbornly to absolutes, like an overly literal child on a playground who thinks he just bested everyone because someone let a word slip the wrong way before the game started.

You’re not stupid, Bryan. Grow up.

Lacking absolutes, how does one acquire the ability to support the claim that the creation museum is "anti-science"?

It's not my problem we're talking about, here. It's your side that is talking in absolutes and thus needs to back it up with absolutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So you had trouble grasping the point, then. Unattributed writings may count as evidence philosophically and logically. You'll want to keep avoiding that point in favor of pretending that I'm trying to justify misinforming children.

My point is that legal standards and scientific standards are different, contrary to the implication of the earlier argument, and to clarify the point that philosophical (that is, logical) standards ultimately rule.

And that's distorting the point?

Maybe that's why both scientists and judicial systems so often end up with the wrong conclusions. :lol:

But we're not supposed to go there, are we? :lol:

Attacking a person instead of his argument is another stupid lawyer trick. You can't claim that something isn't evidence simply because scientific or legal systems might not regard it as such. Philosophy is the parent of those other disciples. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

This is dead wrong, and it's a fatal problem with virtually everything Bryan says on this subject. Science has revolutionized life, not philosophy. Science gets the funding and the research and the attention because it has changed our lives. Philosophy has its place but it is not the parent of science except in a loose historical sense.

Even if he had a valid point, which he doesn't, applying his argument to the issue at hand would be ridiculous. Men who lived thousands of years ago did not know more about science than we know today. On the contrary, they knew virtually nothing about it. Defending the Creationist Ignorance Emporium on the grounds that the Bible is reliable science is itself just plain ignorant.

As for stupid attack-dog tricks, pot meet kettle. (See the bolded sections above.)

Bryan, you think and act like a child. Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Meh. Another one who can't see the obvious point. Is the claim that all warrantable claims are based on evidence itself based on evidence? It's self-refuting. Wake up and smell the coffee.

And that must include the supposedly foundational assertion from science that you offered up above. No?

And I shouldn't ask you why you're willing to accept the inconsistency?

There's no inconsistency. Things work better when we base our decisions on facts. That's what makes scientific claims warrantable. They work.

And what evidence makes your conclusion a "warrantable" claim, Mr. Science?

That's your cue to clam up and hope nobody notices that you can't give an answer. Or just claim "It's obvious" in the hopes that nobody notices you can't come up with an example.

Because science works. If philosophy worked this well, the money being spent on science would be spent on philosophy; but it doesn't, so it isn't. So you see, there is an answer. Everyone sees it but you.

Well, OK. Every reasonable person sees it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Verily, it's amazing how many brave anonymous folks have come forward in this thread!

It is the supposedly foundational assumption one "Guest" presented that is self-refuting. There is no single "scientific method" and I'm sure that there are ways of expressing it in a manner that is not self-refuting. On the other hand, one hapless anonymous poster was not able to express it that way.

Heh. Ironically, that's exactly what I'm pointing out. I'm well aware that all Popperian criteria have exceptions and that there is no absolutely rigid scientific method. That is exactly what makes the "anti-science" charge so hard to back up. My knowledge of science, particularly the philosophy of science, makes me aware that people like you are unlikely to have much of a chance to back up that kind of charge. You make the charge simply because of a form of bigotry against those who don't have "an attitude and an approach" that agrees with yours--so even though you can't figure out how to make the "anti-science" charge stick by using reason, you can always say that you don't like that guy's attitude. Pretty empty if you ask me.

Right, so even if you don't have a prayer of describing logically and rationally what makes them anti-science, at least you can say that they don't possess the right attitude. No balance or whatever. Keep it nebulous enough so that you can't be expected to back it up with reason.

Those who are actually paying attention will see no such thing. Rather, they see those who ought to be proving their assertions that the museum (which presents a version of mainstream science alongside its preferred vision of origins) is anti-science hedging away from their own burden of proof.

There’s no one school of philosophy either, idiot. But I just have a hunch that if you take 1,000 scientists to the Creationist Ignorance Emporium, virtually every one of them can tell you what’s wrong with it.

Meanwhile, science marches on. It is far more unified than philosophy. The following are the first few hits from Google. Try it, Bryan. It’s still not too late for you to learn basic science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair...ic_method.shtml

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/.../appendixe.html

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So is that your way of hand waving uniformitarian assumption or what?

No, it's my way of telling you that science works.

Why would you bother to say that? Is that our topic? I brought up the fact that much of science is based on uniformitarian assumptions. So why shouldn't I conclude that you bring up "science works" as an excuse for uniformitarian assumptions? Should I simply have assumed that you were changing our topic?

It may not be your issue, but it is mine. I'm interested in what will make our lives better.

Science does not prove anything.

Oh, OK. I suggest you study the meaning of proof. It doesn't always mean absolute. If you knew anything about science OR philosophy, you would know that.

http://plus.maths.org/issue10/features/proof4/

There's no reason to get testy just because you're using a strict philosophical definition for "proof." I'm using the term in a more practical sense. http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/06/evide...-and-proof.html

That's because I'm interested in what works best and less interested in philosophical points that don't relate to anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Yes it does, unless one admits up front that the provisionality principle is provisional. It wasn't described that way to me.

Sure it could. But the main point is that the "Guest" who insisted on the provisionality principle lacks a sure grasp on the philosophy of science.

Great. It's really too bad that it wasn't described that way from the first, isn't it?

I love it when you folks come forth with statements like that one. Very scientific. :lol:

Lacking absolutes, how does one acquire the ability to support the claim that the creation museum is "anti-science"?

It's not my problem we're talking about, here. It's your side that is talking in absolutes and thus needs to back it up with absolutes.

You assumed that, and you were wrong. There was no basis for you to assume that scientific provisionality is any less subject to revision than any other scientific principle. I shouldn't have had to describe it to you. If you understood science, it would have been obvious.

Just because the Creationist Ignorance Emporium advances claims to absolute truth doesn't mean they have anything to back it up. Science, with all its provisionality and uncertainty, works better, and history proves it.

Is that the problem, Bryan? You want absolutes. No wonder you don't make any sense. Absolute certainty? Not in this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is dead wrong, and it's a fatal problem with virtually everything Bryan says on this subject. Science has revolutionized life, not philosophy. Science gets the funding and the research and the attention because it has changed our lives. Philosophy has its place but it is not the parent of science except in a loose historical sense.

Drop the "loose" and you've got it; though of course you'd be contradicting yourself.

Even if he had a valid point, which he doesn't, applying his argument to the issue at hand would be ridiculous. Men who lived thousands of years ago did not know more about science than we know today.

lol

What does that have to do with anything?

Red herring=stupid lawyer trick.

On the contrary, they knew virtually nothing about it. Defending the Creationist Ignorance Emporium on the grounds that the Bible is reliable science is itself just plain ignorant.

Straw man=stupid lawyer trick.

I'm defending the museum from the charge that it is anti-science. Suggest otherwise and you've strayed from the truth.

As for stupid attack-dog tricks, pot meet kettle. (See the bolded sections above.)

Bryan, you think and act like a child. Grow up.

Saying that you (or that person, assuming more than one "Guest") had trouble grasping the point is not an attack on the person. It does deal with one particular instance of behavior (your behavior is separate from your person, as one may act stupidly without being a stupid person). One may infer that a pattern of behavior reflects on the person exhibiting that behavior, but I made no attempt at all to suggest a pattern. And, finally, this is not a case of ignoring the argument in favor of attacking the person. It is a case of clarifying the actual topic as against the claims of another. There's nothing fallacious or childish about my post. Your final statement, in conjunction with your failure to deal with my point apart from red herrings and straw men, would seem far more difficult to defend. It does appear to qualify as a fallacious ad hominem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no inconsistency. Things work better when we base our decisions on facts. That's what makes scientific claims warrantable. They work.

Ah. So if you ignore the problem then it will go away. And you figure that will work.

Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s no one school of philosophy either, idiot.

I must have said there was one school of philosophy or something.

Except I didn't, and it doesn't matter one whit to my point. So here's another "Guest" making no real point and coupling it with ad hominem.

But I just have a hunch that if you take 1,000 scientists to the Creationist Ignorance Emporium, virtually every one of them can tell you what’s wrong with it.

Maybe one of them would even claim that it is "anti-science." And I'd do the same follow up and ask the scientist on what basis the judgment is made. And if he tells me that if we take 1,000 scientists and they would tell me what is wrong with the museum then I may suspect that he is stalling because he doesn't really know the answer.

Meanwhile, science marches on. It is far more unified than philosophy. The following are the first few hits from Google. Try it, Bryan. It’s still not too late for you to learn basic science.

It's not too late for you to admit that you have no evidence that I don't already know basic science and beyond, either.

But ad hominem is so much easier for you, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...