Jump to content

David Paszkiewicz's idea of science


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest
Excellent! Do it, then. You just said it was "easily" done. So do it. It's easy.

Yes, it was easy, and it was already done, many times. The Ignorance Emporium starts with the favored hypothesis and uses non-scientific reasoning to "support" it, all with disregard of nearly all the evidence. You just admitted that the museum "may be" an insult to science. Indeed it is. Just because you want to draw a distinction between anti-scientific and scientifically insulting doesn't mean anyone else is or should be interested in it.

We know that is false from the linked photographs. How can you claim that evidence is "ignored" when the evolutionary account is presented side-by-side with the creation account? And if you charge the museum with an anti-science attitude for not including certain specifics that you think count in evolution's favor, then how can you consistently object to "balanced treatment" laws that seek to include evidence that poses difficult questions for evolutionary theory in science classrooms?

1. Because evolution is distorted in these "exhibits" and nearly all the data and supporting analyses are omitted. It's like doing a math problem. You can't do five steps properly, and then just make stuff up when you can't take the other twelve steps. You're not doing math, and the solution isn't partly valid. You're just faking it and your answer is not justified. These "exhibits" are the equivalent of that relative to science.

2. Because those proposed laws are not aimed at presenting science. They're aimed at presenting theology and calling it science.

The museum may well be an insult to science, but unless you equate that with "anti-science" then I don't consider it relevant. And I don't take Collins' opinion on the matter as authoritative minus the justification.

I don't take Collins' opinion as authoritative on anything (or your opinion about what's relevant, either - relevant to what?) but you're missing the point, as usual. Insult to science or anti-science or both, call it what you will. It's an abomination. Do you agree?

Disingenuousness occurs when you present my statement that there is no "the" scientific method as the claim that there is no scientific method. Your reply implicitly supports me in my statement, yet you try to spin it as a contradiction.

That is something you must wear, brave "Guest."

:rolleyes: Oh, I get it! It depends on what the definition of "is" is. :lol: :lol:

Bryan, just to be serious for a moment, you can't overliteralize someone's statements and then blame them for your misreading. Besides, if you're going to apply such an exacting standard to people you don't agree with, shouldn't you apply the same standard to people you do agree with, including yourself? (How's that for a little Socratic method?)

What an ass!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Yes, it was easy, and it was already done, many times. The Ignorance Emporium starts with the favored hypothesis and uses non-scientific reasoning to "support" it, all with disregard of nearly all the evidence. You just admitted that the museum "may be" an insult to science. Indeed it is. Just because you want to draw a distinction between anti-scientific and scientifically insulting doesn't mean anyone else is or should be interested in it.

1. Because evolution is distorted in these "exhibits" and nearly all the data and supporting analyses are omitted. It's like doing a math problem. You can't do five steps properly, and then just make stuff up when you can't take the other twelve steps. You're not doing math, and the solution isn't partly valid. You're just faking it and your answer is not justified. These "exhibits" are the equivalent of that relative to science.

2. Because those proposed laws are not aimed at presenting science. They're aimed at presenting theology and calling it science.

I don't take Collins' opinion as authoritative on anything (or your opinion about what's relevant, either - relevant to what?) but you're missing the point, as usual. Insult to science or anti-science or both, call it what you will. It's an abomination. Do you agree?

:rolleyes: Oh, I get it! It depends on what the definition of "is" is. :lol: :lol:

Bryan, just to be serious for a moment, you can't overliteralize someone's statements and then blame them for your misreading. Besides, if you're going to apply such an exacting standard to people you don't agree with, shouldn't you apply the same standard to people you do agree with, including yourself? (How's that for a little Socratic method?)

What an ass!

Bryan is never wrong. He's a legend in his own mind. Just ask him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your explanations are unsatisfactory, Bryan.

Really? In what way?

You will never admit it, but the scientific method is recognized and applied throughout the scientific community all over the world. The “general principles of scientific method . . . pervade all of the sciences.” http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Method-Pr...p;sr=1-5#reader , p. 1.

I have no problem admitting that "the general principles of the scientific method" are recognized world over. I simply said that there is no "the" scientific method. Your side has attempted to take that comment of context--in the name of Science, no doubt. So of course it is a noble act.

Don't really need the links, thanks. Once we find a straw man we can cooperatively trample him and then get back to the real issue.

The Ignorance Emporium argues that the Bible is the authority, not that evidence is the authority.

Does it? I have yet to see evidence of that from the slides. You?

One of its posters says that the difference between it and science is that its starting point is “God’s word,” as contrasted with science, whose starting point is “human reason.”

One of the key principles of science is "observation."

The museum poster contrasted "God's Word" with "human reason" and did not mention science. You apparently invented the contrast. Perhaps you simply did not observe carefully enough.

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2332.html

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2336.html

They neglect to mention that science is also based on evidence. That is why the Creationist Ignorance Emporium is anti-scienific.

Again, you appear to be making things up. Take a look at the second slide I linked above. "Same rocks" it says. The rocks are an evidence, and it seems to be allowed that the evidence is interpreted according to present processes according to the "human reason" of old-earth cosmologists. Do you think that is an unfair characterization by the museum exhibit?

The Ignorance Emporium starts from the conclusions, which are to be found in the Bible, and works its way backward to justify them.

That may be the case in specific instances. On the other hand, am I to suppose that a YEC would not be able to utilize science to discover the principles of flight? Recall that it was asserted that the museum was not merely wrong about certain things, but that the museum is "anti-science."

That’s just not how science works, no matter which view you take of its method. In science, you form your hypothesis and your theory from the evidence; you don’t start with your hypothesis and then use any means to justify it.

Would you say that Einstein was anti-science given that he fudged the cosmological constant at first while working the his theory of relativity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Really? In what way?

I have no problem admitting that "the general principles of the scientific method" are recognized world over. I simply said that there is no "the" scientific method. Your side has attempted to take that comment of context--in the name of Science, no doubt. So of course it is a noble act.

Don't really need the links, thanks. Once we find a straw man we can cooperatively trample him and then get back to the real issue.

Does it? I have yet to see evidence of that from the slides. You?

One of the key principles of science is "observation."

The museum poster contrasted "God's Word" with "human reason" and did not mention science. You apparently invented the contrast. Perhaps you simply did not observe carefully enough.

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2332.html

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2336.html

Again, you appear to be making things up. Take a look at the second slide I linked above. "Same rocks" it says. The rocks are an evidence, and it seems to be allowed that the evidence is interpreted according to present processes according to the "human reason" of old-earth cosmologists. Do you think that is an unfair characterization by the museum exhibit?

That may be the case in specific instances. On the other hand, am I to suppose that a YEC would not be able to utilize science to discover the principles of flight? Recall that it was asserted that the museum was not merely wrong about certain things, but that the museum is "anti-science."

Would you say that Einstein was anti-science given that he fudged the cosmological constant at first while working the his theory of relativity?

Bryan gets so wrapped up finding a way to say he’s right that he consistently misses the point, often even his own.

Just because a poster at the Ignorance Emporium says “human reason” doesn’t mean that it isn’t commenting on science, which is an outgrowth of human reason.

Just because the Ignorance Emporium includes some facts (observations) in its presentation doesn’t mean that it isn’t attacking science. Its promoters use those observations to gain credibility for their displays, so that they can then distort and lie about other things.

Just because there is more than one scientific method, narrowly defined, doesn’t mean there isn’t a scientific method, broadly defined.

Bryan’s arguments are child’s play.

Einstein is a fascinating case. On the one hand, he was among the most brilliant scientists ever, and his contributions to science are monumental. Even so, many scientists recognize that he sometimes strayed from doing real science. His cosmological constant has been widely criticized, for example. But there is a great difference between Einstein's (subtle?) departure from the scientific method and the Ignorance Emporium's full frontal attack on it. Einstein made contributions to science; the Ignorance Emporium is promoting and fostering ignorance, thereby setting science back.

The Ignorance Emporium has an agenda. Sure, they might use real science where they don’t disagree with it, but when science doesn’t fit their agenda, they attack, distort and lie about it. Science isn't their primary source of truth about nature; they say that explicitly and that is what makes them anti-scientific. That’s my issue.

Bryan, you mentioned “the real issue”. Don’t keep us wondering. Give us the benefit of your vast erudition. Please tell us unenlightened souls what you think “the real issue” is. (Don’t hold your breath, anyone.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan gets so wrapped up finding a way to say he’s right that he consistently misses the point, often even his own.

Just because a poster at the Ignorance Emporium says “human reason” doesn’t mean that it isn’t commenting on science, which is an outgrowth of human reason.

Sure. But shall we just assume that it refers to "science" or shall we base that conclusion on evidence? Am I wrong for wanting evidence?

Just because the Ignorance Emporium includes some facts (observations) in its presentation doesn’t mean that it isn’t attacking science.

Of course. But the museum presents more than just supposed facts. It presents what you might well call a scientific account of origins as part of its exhibits. That's why I asked if the presentation was thought fair. Your mode of response will perhaps aid you in dodging that question.

Its promoters use those observations to gain credibility for their displays, so that they can then distort and lie about other things.

Perhaps you should come up with concrete examples in support of your claims.

Just because there is more than one scientific method, narrowly defined, doesn’t mean there isn’t a scientific method, broadly defined.

I thought we had already agreed on that. But perhaps you reiterated it to help reinforce the impression that you were right and I was not.

Bryan’s arguments are child’s play.

Great. Then that means that you can address them. I look forward to it.

Einstein is a fascinating case. On the one hand, he was among the most brilliant scientists ever, and his contributions to science are monumental. Even so, many scientists recognize that he sometimes strayed from doing real science. His cosmological constant has been widely criticized, for example. But there is a great difference between Einstein's (subtle?) departure from the scientific method and the Ignorance Emporium's full frontal attack on it. Einstein made contributions to science; the Ignorance Emporium is promoting and fostering ignorance, thereby setting science back.

Instead of just telling us that there is a "big difference" why don't you tell us exactly what the difference is? That would address my argument. What you're doing is avoiding the argument with a hand wave.

Perhaps you think that once you have labeled my arguments "child's play" it is then appropriate to simply wave them away?

The Ignorance Emporium has an agenda. Sure, they might use real science where they don’t disagree with it, but when science doesn’t fit their agenda, they attack, distort and lie about it. Science isn't their primary source of truth about nature; they say that explicitly and that is what makes them anti-scientific. That’s my issue.

Mine, too. I don't want you folks distorting or lying about those aspects of the creation museum with which you disagree. You can help both of us by offering up specific examples when you talk about the "big difference" between the museum and Albert Einstein. Or other criticisms you might offer.

Bryan, you mentioned “the real issue”. Don’t keep us wondering. Give us the benefit of your vast erudition. Please tell us unenlightened souls what you think “the real issue” is. (Don’t hold your breath, anyone.)

We're touching on a variety of issues, and I've already mentioned mine specifically more than once. It was asserted that the creation museum is "anti-science" and I want to see the support of that claim.

Perhaps you weren't observing carefully when I wrote that, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
1. Sure. But shall we just assume that it refers to "science" or shall we base that conclusion on evidence? Am I wrong for wanting evidence?

2. Of course. But the museum presents more than just supposed facts. It presents what you might well call a scientific account of origins as part of its exhibits. That's why I asked if the presentation was thought fair. Your mode of response will perhaps aid you in dodging that question.

3. Perhaps you should come up with concrete examples in support of your claims.

I thought we had already agreed on that. But perhaps you reiterated it to help reinforce the impression that you were right and I was not.

Great. Then that means that you can address them. I look forward to it.

4. Instead of just telling us that there is a "big difference" why don't you tell us exactly what the difference is? That would address my argument. What you're doing is avoiding the argument with a hand wave.

Perhaps you think that once you have labeled my arguments "child's play" it is then appropriate to simply wave them away?

5. Mine, too. I don't want you folks distorting or lying about those aspects of the creation museum with which you disagree. You can help both of us by offering up specific examples when you talk about the "big difference" between the museum and Albert Einstein. Or other criticisms you might offer.

6. We're touching on a variety of issues, and I've already mentioned mine specifically more than once. It was asserted that the creation museum is "anti-science" and I want to see the support of that claim.

Perhaps you weren't observing carefully when I wrote that, however.

1. The posters address scientific questions, like the age of the Earth. You have the evidence, you just refuse to admit it.

2. No, it is not a scientific account. It is an account based on scripture, which is not scientific.

3. As always, Bryan demands absolute proof in an order prescribed by him, and submitted in triplicate, for everything he disagrees with and no proof at all for what he chooses to believe. This itself is contrary to the scientific method or for that matter any objective and reasoned analysis of anything. He also sticks his head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge what is right before his eyes.

4. If I have to tell you the difference between Einstein and a person who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, you wouldn’t understand it anyway.

5. No, that’s not your issue. If it was, you wouldn’t be calling “explanations” of nature based on the Bible scientific. Science is about the method.

6. Perhaps you weren’t observing carefully when that point was explained to you – over and over and over and over and over . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Sure. But shall we just assume that it refers to "science" or shall we base that conclusion on evidence? Am I wrong for wanting evidence?

Of course. But the museum presents more than just supposed facts. It presents what you might well call a scientific account of origins as part of its exhibits. That's why I asked if the presentation was thought fair. Your mode of response will perhaps aid you in dodging that question.

Perhaps you should come up with concrete examples in support of your claims.

I thought we had already agreed on that. But perhaps you reiterated it to help reinforce the impression that you were right and I was not.

Great. Then that means that you can address them. I look forward to it.

Instead of just telling us that there is a "big difference" why don't you tell us exactly what the difference is? That would address my argument. What you're doing is avoiding the argument with a hand wave.

Perhaps you think that once you have labeled my arguments "child's play" it is then appropriate to simply wave them away?

Mine, too. I don't want you folks distorting or lying about those aspects of the creation museum with which you disagree. You can help both of us by offering up specific examples when you talk about the "big difference" between the museum and Albert Einstein. Or other criticisms you might offer.

We're touching on a variety of issues, and I've already mentioned mine specifically more than once. It was asserted that the creation museum is "anti-science" and I want to see the support of that claim.

Perhaps you weren't observing carefully when I wrote that, however.

The Ignorance Emporium is anti-scientific because:

1. Its method of knowing is inconsistent with science;

2. Because its method of knowing is wrapped around religious "faith," it is invested in its answers;

3. That creates inevitable conflicts with science, which it portrays as being an inferior method of knowing;

4. The rift is so deep that the Ignorance Emporium routinely mocks or dismisses science and its methods, rendering the overall display:

Anti-scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Why don’t the students visit the American Museum of Natural History in New York City? They would learn real science there. http://www.amnh.org/ It’s only ten miles from Kearny, at Central Park West and 80th Street in Manhattan.

They always have special exhibits and their permanent exhibit for evolution, on the fourth floor, is as good as it gets. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/....php?framenum=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Sure. But shall we just assume that it refers to "science" or shall we base that conclusion on evidence? Am I wrong for wanting evidence?

1. The posters address scientific questions, like the age of the Earth. You have the evidence, you just refuse to admit it.

Your response is incoherent. The poster would still deal with the age of the earth if only the "God's Word" side of the poster existed. Would you therefore conclude that the "God's Word" portion was science because it addresses a scientific question?

2. Of course. But the museum presents more than just supposed facts. It presents what you might well call a scientific account of origins as part of its exhibits. That's why I asked if the presentation was thought fair. Your mode of response will perhaps aid you in dodging that question.

2. No, it is not a scientific account. It is an account based on scripture, which is not scientific.

Again, your response is incoherent. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out that the museum includes a "human wisdom" account of origins. Do you think that presentation is fair or not?

3. Perhaps you should come up with concrete examples in support of your claims.

I thought we had already agreed on that. But perhaps you reiterated it to help reinforce the impression that you were right and I was not.

Great. Then that means that you can address them. I look forward to it.

3. As always, Bryan demands absolute proof in an order prescribed by him, and submitted in triplicate, for everything he disagrees with and no proof at all for what he chooses to believe. This itself is contrary to the scientific method or for that matter any objective and reasoned analysis of anything. He also sticks his head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge what is right before his eyes.

I ask you to put evidence before my eyes and instead of providing it you attack me for refusing to acknowledge what you have not provided.

Are you for real?

4. Instead of just telling us that there is a "big difference" why don't you tell us exactly what the difference is? That would address my argument. What you're doing is avoiding the argument with a hand wave.

4. If I have to tell you the difference between Einstein and a person who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, you wouldn’t understand it anyway.

Ad hominem always makes a great substitute for addressing the issue, doesn't it? Heh. You can't tell me the difference because I wouldn't understand it. I don't think I've heard that one since grade school.

5. Mine, too. I don't want you folks distorting or lying about those aspects of the creation museum with which you disagree. You can help both of us by offering up specific examples when you talk about the "big difference" between the museum and Albert Einstein. Or other criticisms you might offer.

5. No, that’s not your issue. If it was, you wouldn’t be calling “explanations” of nature based on the Bible scientific. Science is about the method.

I think I explained myself adequately, even if you apparently had trouble following along.

It's amusing that you're back to talking about "the method" of science even though it is dead easy to find every Popperian criterion for science dropped in one or another example of so-called "science."

If you don't know philosophy of science you might want to keep avoiding that issue while pretending that there is a scientific method that is well and properly defined.

6. We're touching on a variety of issues, and I've already mentioned mine specifically more than once. It was asserted that the creation museum is "anti-science" and I want to see the support of that claim.

6. Perhaps you weren’t observing carefully when that point was explained to you – over and over and over and over and over . . .

Yes, but I'm hoping for a version lacking fatally flawed content or, as in your case, examples where the content is entirely lacking. 'Cause I wouldn't understand or some lame excuse like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Don't tell Paul LaClair that the scientists traveled to the museum on school buses. His blood pressure can use a break.

;)

You are such an ass. The scientists are in no danger of being duped by the exhibits. The purpose of their trip to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Your response is incoherent. The poster would still deal with the age of the earth if only the "God's Word" side of the poster existed. Would you therefore conclude that the "God's Word" portion was science because it addresses a scientific question?

Your response is stupid. “Science is dumb.” There, I addressed science but not in an intelligent way. So, too, the Ignorance Emporium.

Again, your response is incoherent. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out that the museum includes a "human wisdom" account of origins. Do you think that presentation is fair or not?

Sez you. “Human wisdom” is no substitute for empirical science. Plenty of people claim they are wise. Take you, for example . . .

The whole point of science over the past 500 years or so is that we have learned things people couldn't know just by claiming to be wise. If all scientific problems were soluble through "human wisdom," Aristotle and the Buddha would have done it.

I ask you to put evidence before my eyes and instead of providing it you attack me for refusing to acknowledge what you have not provided.

Are you for real?

The evidence is before your eyes. The Ignorance Emporium is an attack on science. Its methods are totally contrary to science. Anything that doesn’t conform to the Bible is summarily rejected. That is not science, and no number of scientific references can salvage it. The scientists who just visited there were horrified.

Ad hominem always makes a great substitute for addressing the issue, doesn't it? Heh. You can't tell me the difference because I wouldn't understand it. I don't think I've heard that one since grade school.

As usual, you chose to ignore the point you didn’t want to hear. There are profound differences between Einstein and young-earth creationists. You don't acknowledge the point and you don't respond to it. As always, you falsely call the other person on your own flawed illogic.

Furthermore, you have claimed you aren’t a YEC. So why do you keep defending them?

I think I explained myself adequately, even if you apparently had trouble following along. It's amusing that you're back to talking about "the method" of science even though it is dead easy to find every Popperian criterion for science dropped in one or another example of so-called "science."

If you don't know philosophy of science you might want to keep avoiding that issue while pretending that there is a scientific method that is well and properly defined.

Just because you fancy yourself a philosopher doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. You may have read some things about the philosophy of science, but you don’t understand science. It’s not a rigid set of philosophical constructs, but a proven method for learning about the (natural) world.

Yes, but I'm hoping for a version lacking fatally flawed content or, as in your case, examples where the content is entirely lacking. 'Cause I wouldn't understand or some lame excuse like that.

What you call fatally flawed is what scientists accept as inevitable – and yet somehow they have revolutionized our lives. It's as though you live in a hypothetical universe that isn't real. That's not how things are. We have a mountain of real data to work with. You completely ignore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scientists are in no danger of being duped by the exhibits. The purpose of their trip to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution.

Good use of our tax dollars, then? Could high school students use school buses to go to the museum to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution? How about if they passed a test proving that they were in no danger of being "duped"? Would that make it okay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poster would still deal with the age of the earth if only the "God's Word" side of the poster existed. Would you therefore conclude that the "God's Word" portion was science because it addresses a scientific question?

Your response is stupid. “Science is dumb.” There, I addressed science but not in an intelligent way. So, too, the Ignorance Emporium.

Maybe the reductio ad absurdum will just go away if you ignore it.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out that the museum includes a "human wisdom" account of origins. Do you think that presentation is fair or not?

Sez you. “Human wisdom” is no substitute for empirical science. Plenty of people claim they are wise. Take you, for example . . .

1) You disagree that that museum includes a "human wisdom" account of origins? Is the photographic evidence not enough for you?

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2332.html

2) Where have I ever claimed that I am wise? Do you feel comfortable lying about that?

The whole point of science over the past 500 years or so is that we have learned things people couldn't know just by claiming to be wise. If all scientific problems were soluble through "human wisdom," Aristotle and the Buddha would have done it.

So now "human wisdom" is no longer equal to "science"? Let me know when you make up your mind.

I ask you to put evidence before my eyes and instead of providing it you attack me for refusing to acknowledge what you have not provided.

The evidence is before your eyes.

It's pretty easy to type that, isn't it? Be specific. Is the evidence the "Speed Racer" lamp next to my keyboard? Do you find it in one of the photos of the museum?

Here's the thing: Every time we've looked for the supposed evidence in one of the photos, your side ends up fibbing, just like when "human reason" was science for awhile until you changed your mind and converted "human reason" into the type of thinking that kept Aristotle from coming up with a good account of origins. And you try to bury the failure by simply repeating that the evidence is there but that I refuse to see it.

The Ignorance Emporium is an attack on science.

Perhaps if you copy and paste that a few hundred times it will make up for your failure to present evidence.

Its methods are totally contrary to science. Anything that doesn’t conform to the Bible is summarily rejected. That is not science, and no number of scientific references can salvage it.

As previously noted, many things commonly accepted as science abandon Popperian criteria here and there. Why is this exception not as forgivable as other exceptions?

The scientists who just visited there were horrified.

Do we determine scientific truth via popular vote of scientists, now? Which step of the scientific method is that?

As usual, you chose to ignore the point you didn’t want to hear.

As usual, you're repeating yourself without presenting the evidence that I am supposedly ignoring.

There are profound differences between Einstein and young-earth creationists.

Right. We've been over that. You can't reveal the differences because I wouldn't understand. And no doubt your dad can beat up my dad.

You don't acknowledge the point and you don't respond to it.

How is asking you what the differences are not acknowledging the point? Or by "acknowledging" do you simply mean that I have to take it on faith that the (relevant) differences you claim exist do, in fact, exist even though you won't present them?

Rather than me not acknowledging the point, we seem to have a case where you will not support the point.

As always, you falsely call the other person on your own flawed illogic.

What specific example do you have in mind? Because it sounds like you're just making stuff up. And it may not be the first time, if you've posted as "Guest" prior to now.

Furthermore, you have claimed you aren’t a YEC. So why do you keep defending them?

I already explained that. Even if someone is wrong about certain things it does not grant license to others to lie about them.

Just because you fancy yourself a philosopher doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. You may have read some things about the philosophy of science, but you don’t understand science. It’s not a rigid set of philosophical constructs, but a proven method for learning about the (natural) world.

Good imitation of Paul LaClair, there.

You say that I don't understand science. What is the evidence of that? You say that science is not a rigid set of philosophical constructs. Let's suppose that's true for a moment. Have I ever said otherwise? If not, then what is your basis for claiming that I don't understand science?

Shouldn't you need some basis for claiming that I don't understand science? If you're going to keep saying that and we're supposed to take you seriously, that is?

What you call fatally flawed is what scientists accept as inevitable – and yet somehow they have revolutionized our lives.

It sure looks like you took my "fatally flawed" statement out of context. I'd prefer if you would not do that. I was not talking about science but about the attempts to argue that the Creation Museum is "anti-science."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97526

If we were to take your statement as treating mine in its original context, then we have science taking its own particular finding as inevitable, which runs directly contrary to one "Guest"'s earlier claim that science keeps all questions open. Could that have been you?

It's as though you live in a hypothetical universe that isn't real. That's not how things are. We have a mountain of real data to work with. You completely ignore it.

I don't see how I can do anything other than ignore data that others refuse to provide on the grounds that I would not understand it.

It is more than slightly disingenuous to refuse to provide evidence and also claim I'm ignoring the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the reductio ad absurdum will just go away if you ignore it.

1) You disagree that that museum includes a "human wisdom" account of origins? Is the photographic evidence not enough for you?

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2332.html

2) Where have I ever claimed that I am wise? Do you feel comfortable lying about that?

So now "human wisdom" is no longer equal to "science"? Let me know when you make up your mind.

It's pretty easy to type that, isn't it? Be specific. Is the evidence the "Speed Racer" lamp next to my keyboard? Do you find it in one of the photos of the museum?

Here's the thing: Every time we've looked for the supposed evidence in one of the photos, your side ends up fibbing, just like when "human reason" was science for awhile until you changed your mind and converted "human reason" into the type of thinking that kept Aristotle from coming up with a good account of origins. And you try to bury the failure by simply repeating that the evidence is there but that I refuse to see it.

Perhaps if you copy and paste that a few hundred times it will make up for your failure to present evidence.

As previously noted, many things commonly accepted as science abandon Popperian criteria here and there. Why is this exception not as forgivable as other exceptions?

Do we determine scientific truth via popular vote of scientists, now? Which step of the scientific method is that?

As usual, you're repeating yourself without presenting the evidence that I am supposedly ignoring.

Right. We've been over that. You can't reveal the differences because I wouldn't understand. And no doubt your dad can beat up my dad.

You don't acknowledge the point and you don't respond to it.

How is asking you what the differences are not acknowledging the point? Or by "acknowledging" do you simply mean that I have to take it on faith that the (relevant) differences you claim exist do, in fact, exist even though you won't present them?

Rather than me not acknowledging the point, we seem to have a case where you will not support the point.

As always, you falsely call the other person on your own flawed illogic.

What specific example do you have in mind? Because it sounds like you're just making stuff up. And it may not be the first time, if you've posted as "Guest" prior to now.

Furthermore, you have claimed you aren’t a YEC. So why do you keep defending them?

I already explained that. Even if someone is wrong about certain things it does not grant license to others to lie about them.

Just because you fancy yourself a philosopher doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. You may have read some things about the philosophy of science, but you don’t understand science. It’s not a rigid set of philosophical constructs, but a proven method for learning about the (natural) world.

Good imitation of Paul LaClair, there.

You say that I don't understand science. What is the evidence of that? You say that science is not a rigid set of philosophical constructs. Let's suppose that's true for a moment. Have I ever said otherwise? If not, then what is your basis for claiming that I don't understand science?

Shouldn't you need some basis for claiming that I don't understand science? If you're going to keep saying that and we're supposed to take you seriously, that is?

What you call fatally flawed is what scientists accept as inevitable – and yet somehow they have revolutionized our lives.

It sure looks like you took my "fatally flawed" statement out of context. I'd prefer if you would not do that. I was not talking about science but about the attempts to argue that the Creation Museum is "anti-science."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97526

If we were to take your statement as treating mine in its original context, then we have science taking its own particular finding as inevitable, which runs directly contrary to one "Guest"'s earlier claim that science keeps all questions open. Could that have been you?

It's as though you live in a hypothetical universe that isn't real. That's not how things are. We have a mountain of real data to work with. You completely ignore it.

I don't see how I can do anything other than ignore data that others refuse to provide on the grounds that I would not understand it.

It is more than slightly disingenuous to refuse to provide evidence and also claim I'm ignoring the evidence.

"Thou art an enormous prick!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Good use of our tax dollars, then? Could high school students use school buses to go to the museum to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution? How about if they passed a test proving that they were in no danger of being "duped"? Would that make it okay?

These students didn't go to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution. They went because they believe that evolution is nonsense. http://www.theobserver.com/articles/2009/0...5d700078863.txt As usual, Bryan completely ignores the facts in pursuit of a hypothetical debating point.

They couldn't pass the test Bryan imagines them taking. If they could, they would know enough about evolution that they wouldn't have gone on the trip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Thou art an enormous prick!"

You'd have much better reason for that remark if I had quoted a long post and simply replied with a one-line answer that cannot be distinguished from simple insult. Especially if I did it under a pseudonym. Not that I doubt you're god. ;)

If you don't intend to address what you quote then why waste the space by quoting it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These students didn't go to see what kind of nonsense is being spread about evolution. They went because they believe that evolution is nonsense. http://www.theobserver.com/articles/2009/0...5d700078863.txt

How do you know they think evolution is nonsense? Did you take a poll? The article you linked says nothing about the students' attitudes toward evolution.

Just another case where your side likes to make things up without any backing evidence.

As usual, Bryan completely ignores the facts in pursuit of a hypothetical debating point.

With all due respect, you're the one doing that. Paul LaClair objected to the use of school buses for the creation museum trip by students. It seems reasonable to suppose that he would similarly object to the use of public funds used to send scientists there, and if he would not then there should be some principled reason behind it. The principled reason seems to be bigotry or something like that, judging from the "Guest" commentary.

They couldn't pass the test Bryan imagines them taking. If they could, they would know enough about evolution that they wouldn't have gone on the trip.

But it was just pointed out to you that evolutionary scientists took the trip to the museum. So you're the one avoiding the facts. Unless, of course, you have determined that the scientists simply did not know enough about evolution to avoid going to the creation museum.

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...