Jump to content

David Paszkiewicz's idea of science


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
Thank you, Paul. Your usual diatribe again had nothing to do with the origin of life. I believe life is far too vast and complex to chalk it all up to serendipty, that Intelligent Design must be involved. When science proves me wrong, let me know.

So you chalk it up to something even more complex, based completely on the imagination and not at all on evidence, and think you're being logical. When science gives some support to a conscious entity without an organic brain, you let us know.

The current research has everything to do with the origins of life. That is where it's heading. Your unwillingness to admit that's how it could be, and probably is, doesn't diminish the science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest
Paul ignores the fact that the posts appropriately address attempted points from his followers.

I'm perfectly willing to debate the issue--whatever his side eventually decides that is--but honest debate would be nice from that side. No more stupid lawyer tricks in the rhetoric, please.

Talk about a cheap rhetorical trick!

This:

QUOTE (Paul @ Jun 16 2009, 06:28 AM) *

The authors of posts 6 and 8 ignore the fact that the Creationist theme park promotes an anti-scientific world view. It's not just harmless fun. It's the mental conditioning of children who are too young to defend themselves.

isn't law. It's science, psychology and common sense.

Apparently when Bryan has nothing to say he challenges others to "choose a subject, dammit!" <_< even though he has none of his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Paul ignores the fact that the posts appropriately address attempted points from his followers.

I'm perfectly willing to debate the issue--whatever his side eventually decides that is--but honest debate would be nice from that side. No more stupid lawyer tricks in the rhetoric, please.

Riiight..I'm Sorry I forgot, that whole "Freedom of Speach" thing only counts when it coincides with YOUR point of View. Yet you Little Communist wannabes have the audacity to call others "Nazi".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about a cheap rhetorical trick!

This:

QUOTE (Paul @ Jun 16 2009, 06:28 AM) *

The authors of posts 6 and 8 ignore the fact that the Creationist theme park promotes an anti-scientific world view. It's not just harmless fun. It's the mental conditioning of children who are too young to defend themselves.

isn't law. It's science, psychology and common sense.

Ah. So "Guest" has figured out that stupid lawyer tricks can only be done with respect to the law. One cannot, for example, use straw man arguments or diversion tactics with science, psychology or common sense.

Obviously "Guest" is more than a match for me. :lol:

Apparently when Bryan has nothing to say he challenges others to "choose a subject, dammit!" <_< even though he has none of his own.

I take positions on many subjects. It simply isn't my fault if the opposition is too craven to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you chalk it up to something even more complex, based completely on the imagination and not at all on evidence, and think you're being logical. When science gives some support to a conscious entity without an organic brain, you let us know.

What make you think that the Anthropic Principle does not count as evidence?

The current research has everything to do with the origins of life. That is where it's heading. Your unwillingness to admit that's how it could be, and probably is, doesn't diminish the science.

The science of origins is inference-based rather than based on direct observation. So again: Why wouldn't the Anthropic Principle serve as that type of evidence on the other side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
What make you think that the Anthropic Principle does not count as evidence?

The science of origins is inference-based rather than based on direct observation. So again: Why wouldn't the Anthropic Principle serve as that type of evidence on the other side?

Because as you're trying to apply it, it's not falsifiable or verifiable. It doesn't make useful predictions and doesn't advance the state of knowledge. It's just an argument people like you use to support a pre-conceived position. Therefore, it's not evidentiary, or scientific.

You wanted a subject to discuss, here you go:

Prove me wrong by showing with specific and reliable references:

1. That AP is falsifiable/verifiable;

2. The scientifically useful predictions it has made;

3. How it has advanced science and technology;

4. How it is being actively applied in the scientific community today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
What make you think that the Anthropic Principle does not count as evidence?

The science of origins is inference-based rather than based on direct observation. So again: Why wouldn't the Anthropic Principle serve as that type of evidence on the other side?

You'll have to clarify your terms in order for your question to begin to make any sense.

Are you referring to the weak anthropic principle or the strong anthropic principle?

Furthermore, of what do you claim the Anthropic Principle (weak/strong/both) counts as evidence?

Further still, what is your chain of reasoning?

Further still, what "other side" are you referring to, and do you really think there are only two sides to this matter? Aren't you betraying some rather severe biases and a lack of intellectual depth?

Further still, of what merit or value is a comparative analysis of these two subjects?

And since you're so insistent on clarity, why didn't you make these matters clear initially?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
What make you think that the Anthropic Principle does not count as evidence?

The science of origins is inference-based rather than based on direct observation. So again: Why wouldn't the Anthropic Principle serve as that type of evidence on the other side?

Because in most of its attempted applications, it is a mere tautology and therefore is of no value.

In addition, there are at least thirty versions of the anthropic principle, and they say widely different things. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenge...o/ant_encyc.pdf To which of them do you refer?

So the most general but most accurate answer to your question is:

Because you don’t know what you’re talking about. You have no context in which to test your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I'm delighted to see you admit it.

Indeed, in this case the dinosaur pic posted as evidence of an anti-science attitude should be dismissed as to that point. The case would rest entirely on other aspects of the museum, if such a case were to be made. In other words, posting that pic as evidence was misleading and inappropriate.

Looks like you're admitting my point without admitting my point.

So you really don’t see the difference between this:

http://www.dinosaur.pref.fukui.jp/archive/...ir/index_e.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukui_Prefect...Dinosaur_Museum

and this:

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

http://creationmuseum.org/

Are you really saying that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Does it? The linked photos indicate that the Creationist museum offers a comparison of the naturalistic account of creation side by side with the YEC account. If the naturalistic account is presented fairly, then shouldn't it be admitted even by antagonists that the museum teaches science?

No. This is not science.

It is distorted illogic that you would rip to shreds if you didn't share its biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Ah. So "Guest" has figured out that stupid lawyer tricks can only be done with respect to the law. One cannot, for example, use straw man arguments or diversion tactics with science, psychology or common sense.

Obviously "Guest" is more than a match for me. <_<

I take positions on many subjects. It simply isn't my fault if the opposition is too craven to do the same.

But Bryan, the Creationist Ignorance Emporium does promote an anti-scientific world view. Just look at their own web site.

http://creationmuseum.org/

And they are trying to condition kids who are too young to defend themselves. Just watch the remarks to children from the Ignorance Emporium’s founder:

Tell us they’re not conditioning these defenseless children.

Come on, Bryan. Are you really a young-earth creationist? In other words, do you really think the earth is 6,000 years old and that enlightened people in the 21st century should give more credence to an ancient collection of writings than modern science? If so, on what basis?

If you keep going like this, Bryan, anyone is more than a match for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Does it? The linked photos indicate that the Creationist museum offers a comparison of the naturalistic account of creation side by side with the YEC account. If the naturalistic account is presented fairly, then shouldn't it be admitted even by antagonists that the museum teaches science?

No.

First, the naturalistic account is not presented fairly. Science is more than its conclusions, and in particular science education is more about the explanation and the method than about the conclusion. The Creationist Ignorance Emporium completely omits the explanation, and in many instances distorts it beyond recognition. (Does it even get the conclusions right?)

Second, you are confusing education and propaganda. This is especially important for audiences of children who lack the training or sophistication to evaluate the soundness of arguments on their own, especially scientific arguments they do not yet understand. If evolution was intuitively obvious to a mere child, it would have been identified long before Darwin.

Third, the Ignorance Emporium simultaneously denies and ignores the scientific method. Telling people that scientific answers can be derived by adhering to ancient texts is not science, Bryan, and you know it. It meets none of the criteria for science: falsifiability, verifiability, predictive value or application. Shame on you for making a ridiculous argument like that.

You wanted a specific subject to discuss. Defend your shameless argument vis-a-vis the core criteria of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because as you're trying to apply it, it's not falsifiable or verifiable.

How am I trying to apply it, that falsifiability and/or verifiability are relevant?

It doesn't make useful predictions and doesn't advance the state of knowledge.

If the inference is correct then your statement is silly on its face. The Anthropic Principle would predict that a new universe starting from scratch would not likely evolve life as we know it. So how do you define "useful"?

It's just an argument people like you use to support a pre-conceived position. Therefore, it's not evidentiary, or scientific.

I'm trying to get you to realize that science proceeds the same way. There is no way to verify that physical law is universal, yet that is the assumption behind most science. Let's see if you can differentiate yourself from a brick wall by acknowledging the epistemic difficulties of the scientific enterprise.

You wanted a subject to discuss, here you go:

Prove me wrong by showing with specific and reliable references:

1. That AP is falsifiable/verifiable;

2. The scientifically useful predictions it has made;

3. How it has advanced science and technology;

4. How it is being actively applied in the scientific community today.

Ah, so your idea is to shift the burden of proof by having your claims taken as true until they are proved false (another stupid lawyer trick).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Bryan, the Creationist Ignorance Emporium does promote an anti-scientific world view. Just look at their own web site.

http://creationmuseum.org/

What specific things from the website cause you to conclude that it is anti-science?

And they are trying to condition kids who are too young to defend themselves. Just watch the remarks to children from the Ignorance Emporium’s founder:

Tell us they’re not conditioning these defenseless children.

We are always conditioning defenseless children. Even supposing that it is harmful, it is not as harmful as Paul presents it to be.

Come on, Bryan. Are you really a young-earth creationist?

I'm not sure why you'd ask me that. I said in a recent post that I was not a young earth creationist. 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?

In other words, do you really think the earth is 6,000 years old and that enlightened people in the 21st century should give more credence to an ancient collection of writings than modern science? If so, on what basis?

If you keep going like this, Bryan, anyone is more than a match for you.

What would you say is the chief example of something I've written "like this" that indicates that anyone is a match for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
How am I trying to apply it, that falsifiability and/or verifiability are relevant?

If the inference is correct then your statement is silly on its face. The Anthropic Principle would predict that a new universe starting from scratch would not likely evolve life as we know it. So how do you define "useful"?

I'm trying to get you to realize that science proceeds the same way. There is no way to verify that physical law is universal, yet that is the assumption behind most science. Let's see if you can differentiate yourself from a brick wall by acknowledging the epistemic difficulties of the scientific enterprise.

Ah, so your idea is to shift the burden of proof by having your claims taken as true until they are proved false (another stupid lawyer trick).

They're your claims, dimwit. You tell us how you're applying it and how that application is useful. If you don't want to, that's fine. You're just babbling anyway, and this just proves it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
How am I trying to apply it, that falsifiability and/or verifiability are relevant?

If the inference is correct then your statement is silly on its face. The Anthropic Principle would predict that a new universe starting from scratch would not likely evolve life as we know it. So how do you define "useful"?

I'm trying to get you to realize that science proceeds the same way. There is no way to verify that physical law is universal, yet that is the assumption behind most science. Let's see if you can differentiate yourself from a brick wall by acknowledging the epistemic difficulties of the scientific enterprise.

Ah, so your idea is to shift the burden of proof by having your claims taken as true until they are proved false (another stupid lawyer trick).

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
What specific things from the website cause you to conclude that it is anti-science?

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

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

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

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

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.”

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

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

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

You sure stumped me there, Bryan.

We are always conditioning defenseless children. Even supposing that it is harmful, it is not as harmful as Paul presents it to be.

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.

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

I'm not sure why you'd ask me that. I said in a recent post that I was not a young earth creationist. 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. 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.

What's it's not is a museum. It's a theme park dedicated to promoting ignorance in service of a theological agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
What specific things from the website cause you to conclude that it is anti-science?

The scientific method holds that all theories and other truth claims are subject to revision or rejection based on further evidence. The Creationist Ignorance Emporium is an outgrowth (what apt symbolism!) of Ken Ham’s “Answers In Genesis,” which proclaims: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of Primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith ] Never mind, apparently, that The Bible is also subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information – aside from other obvious problems with this statement.

Answers In Genesis’ statement of faith also proclaims: “The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.” In other words, all evidence that contradicts The Bible is to be discarded and ignored. The Bible, in the words of Paszkiewicz’s student club is the Alpha and the Omega. [id.]

Everything in the Ignorance Emporium and on its website reflects this point of view. That’s why it is an ignorance emporium, not a museum. This is contrary to science in two fundamental ways.

1. It is based on unattributed writings, not evidence. In court, such writings would not be admitted in evidence, much less allowed to substitute for all the evidence. In the laboratory or among scientists as well, such writings would be of no value - because as statements about objective reality, they are of no value.

2. Its claim is not subject to scrutiny, revision or rejection. It is merely asserted as a final and unquestionable truth.

Not everyone interprets The Bible with the literalistic fervency of Ken Ham. Such an interpretation makes a head-on collision with science inevitable. Unfortunately for Ham and fortunately for us, he’s driving a tricycle into a tank.

Because everything in the Ignorance Emporium is presented from this point of view it is all anti-scientific. The entire emporium is an attack on science, designed and intended to promote biblical creationism. Its method is anti-scientific and its purpose is to discredit science so that people can rationalize believing what they wish to believe.

Bryan, stubborn as you are, it’s hard to believe you don’t understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
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

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

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

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

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.”

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

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

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

You sure stumped me there, Bryan.

They keep contrasting "human reason" with "God's word." They neglect to mention that their only basis for calling it "God's word" is their own say-so. The exhibits should be titled "reason and science" and "our say-so".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That MIGHT Matter if he taught Science..... But he does Not, so his personal beliefs on Science dont really matter now, do they???

I wouldn't want a science teacher at KHS promoting Holocaust denial to students, even in an extracurricular activity, so why would you want a history teacher promoting nonsensical pseudoscience to students?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
This another typical example of censorship on the left. Of all the pictures you could have chosen regarding the Creation Museum, you chose the one which gives a fun photo op for children. These childish arguments are typical of the left, they don't involve thinking. The goal is to try to humiliate the opposition, not to engage their ideas.

Pardon me, but I think it's slightly more humiliating that THESE CREATION MUSEUM PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT HUMANS DOMESTICATED AND RODE DINOSAURS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
If the naturalistic account is presented fairly, then shouldn't it be admitted even by antagonists that the museum teaches science?

It would come closer (comparing real science to unscientific nonsense as if it was science makes the overall 'product' 'not science' once more). But it doesn't present it fairly. It caricatures and misrepresents the actual evidence, which, of course, is necessary, or else no one would buy the bullshit they're selling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scientific method holds that all theories and other truth claims are subject to revision or rejection based on further evidence.

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.

The Creationist Ignorance Emporium is an outgrowth (what apt symbolism!) of Ken Ham’s “Answers In Genesis,” which proclaims: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of Primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith ] Never mind, apparently, that The Bible is also subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information – aside from other obvious problems with this statement.

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.

Answers In Genesis’ statement of faith also proclaims: “The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.” In other words, all evidence that contradicts The Bible is to be discarded and ignored. The Bible, in the words of Paszkiewicz’s student club is the Alpha and the Omega. [id.]

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.

Everything in the Ignorance Emporium and on its website reflects this point of view.

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

That’s why it is an ignorance emporium, not a museum. This is contrary to science in two fundamental ways.

1. It is based on unattributed writings, not evidence. In court, such writings would not be admitted in evidence, much less allowed to substitute for all the evidence. In the laboratory or among scientists as well, such writings would be of no value - because as statements about objective reality, they are of no value.

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.

2. Its claim is not subject to scrutiny, revision or rejection. It is merely asserted as a final and unquestionable truth.

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

Not everyone interprets The Bible with the literalistic fervency of Ken Ham. Such an interpretation makes a head-on collision with science inevitable. Unfortunately for Ham and fortunately for us, he’s driving a tricycle into a tank.

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

Because everything in the Ignorance Emporium is presented from this point of view it is all anti-scientific. The entire emporium is an attack on science, designed and intended to promote biblical creationism. Its method is anti-scientific and its purpose is to discredit science so that people can rationalize believing what they wish to believe.

Bryan, stubborn as you are, it’s hard to believe you don’t understand this.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're your claims, dimwit.

No, in our present context it was stated that the YEC account is based on no evidence. That is not my claim, it is the claim of "Guest" IIRC. I simply asked on what basis it could be claimed that something like the AP was not evidence.

You tell us how you're applying it and how that application is useful.

I should tell you how I am applying what?

The AP as evidence? I can do that, but if I take on that burden of proof then haven't I let somebody else off the hook for supporting his claim that it does not count as evidence? See stupid lawyer tricks, again.

If you don't want to, that's fine. You're just babbling anyway, and this just proves it.

That doesn't follow. But it does seem to be a fair description of your own post.

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...