Bryan

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. 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.

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? 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. 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.

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.

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? 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.

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

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. 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? 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 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? Your claim is unscientific, resulting from a careless assessment of the museum. So you're anti-science, right? What supposed "wild generalizations" do you detect in that image? 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 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'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?

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?

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

The Times' financial difficulties primarily stem from their outdated product. The biased content certainly exacerbates the problem, but newspapers face extreme difficulties in generating a profit these days regardless of bias.

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. 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.

Paul LaClair has more than once lauded the excellence of the New York Times. The recent story about the firing of IG Gerald Walpin serves as an excellent example of very poor reporting from the Times, however. The Times is not only about a week late on the story (the AP had a piece on the firing when it happened), but also leaves out two of the key facts about the story. 1) The White House ignored the law stipulating that Congress shall receive 30 day notice when an IG is dismissed. 2) Administration officials tried to intimidate Walpin into resigning prior to firing him. If the Grey Lady was ever as great as her legend, at the very least she ain't what she used to be. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/polit...lpin&st=cse http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/18/how-...ma-controversy/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html And this is not an isolated case.

What specific things from the website cause you to conclude that it is anti-science? We are always conditioning defenseless children. Even supposing that it is harmful, it is not as harmful as Paul presents it to be. 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? What would you say is the chief example of something I've written "like this" that indicates that anyone is a match for me?

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).

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?

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.

That's without the "government option" for health insurance that Obama proposes. The CBO estimated that 30 million would remain uninsured with a net gain of about 19 million to the ranks of the insured. I'm not sure where you get the 30 percent figure. Of course you're kidding. Obama is simply another liberal who either doesn't understand economics very well or sees placing additional government control on the economy as a prerequisite to instituting his modern vision of the worker's paradise. Though perhaps the end result won't be far different from the joke version. We have embarked on a very dangerous set of fiscal policies. The deficit as a percentage of the GDP has not been higher since WW2. It's hard to blame Bush for it entirely when the bulk of the deficit comes from a huge set of doctrinaire liberal programs dressed inappropriately in Keynesian garb. With luck, it's not already too late. Obama has proved very effective in exercising power, and once the government gains power (as with its majority share of General Motors), it is typically very difficult to remove the sticky tendrils. Obama has made statements apparently intended to get people to think that the government will get out of GM as soon as it's feasible. Let's see how that goes--though it ought to be disturbing on its face how the president treated contract law with respect to GM's secured creditors. Though the UAW made out OK from the unsecured creditor side.

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?

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.

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.

Let's not equivocate. There is a story behind which subject you wish to address. That's what I'm doing. I want to talk about the subject you want to talk about, and I'm asking you to identify it. So how about it? Wow. You're great. Kids can ride a dinosaur at a common playground. That's wrong, isn't it? http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/20029875.../Digital-Vision http://www.flickr.com/photos/neatocoolville/86918043 http://www.meetup.com/nycfff/pt/about/ One can even find other anti-science museums that allow children to mix with dinosaurs: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fuk...aurMuseum04.JPG Eeeeeeeevil!

It's my attempt to get to clarity regarding our topic. Did you want to talk about the museum, Paszkiewicz, or both? Get your story straight and we'll discuss it.

A pity our public school system performs relatively poorly compared to less expensive (per student) options. Perhaps alternative choices should be made more widely available and families who educate at home should get some sort of tax rebate in recognition of the fact that many of them are, in effect, paying double for education. Subordinate religious freedom to the Elastic Clause, for example?

According to "Guest," it isn't about Paszkiewicz at all. You two hash it out, mmm-kay?

It is not plausible to deny that Mr. LaClair has focused his attention on Mr. Paszkiewicz in particular. Separation of church and state is important. Ideas differ as to what it means, however. The framers would be scratching their heads over taking the Constitution as a bar on teaching about God in a public school, just as they would be either aghast or agog at the notion of federal funding for schools. The separation of church and state was intended to protect religion from government no less than the other way around. I expect that the framers would realize the the combination of funding virtually everything through the federal government, along with a doctrine that federal funds put the gag order on much religious speech may result in a society in which religion is severely curtailed. But that idea seems to be a tough sell to moderns. If he had never experienced religious intolerance or discrimination then you may have just cured him of that condition. How is that supposed to follow? If kids miss a day of school and go to a Creationist museum then it cancels out their science education? Is the Creationist account that compelling? No wonder you fear it. Perhaps you've never considered philosophy enough to realize the implications of what you're saying. Are physical laws constant or do they evolve? If physical laws evolve (and continue to evolve), then what is science? And if the particulars of each thought owe to evolutionary mechanics parallel to biological evolution, then what becomes of truth and personal responsibility? Maybe your problem is that you do not understand evolution. Because you couldn't claim to understand the modern world without having an accurate knowledge of the logical implications of (universal) evolution on metaphysics--could you? Perhaps you overestimate your own level of understanding. Here's your cue to ignore my post.

It is quite obvious that Paul intended the threat of a Evangelical push toward theocracy as a fearsome possibility in order to encourage opposition to its supposed schemes. If he were merely concerned with church/state separation per se, then he could have left out the term "theocracy" very easily. The reason he did not is that people don't fear the mention of God in the classroom quite as much as they do having one particular denomination with exclusive or near-exclusive influence over a nation's central government. Any idea why that would be? I think that justifying the trip on educational grounds is dead easy. Students will learn about the beliefs of a large number of Americans through a visit to a museum like the one in question. So, does the law require all field trips to be justified as science education, or is your rationale crumbling? Yes. I looked at the whole slide show hosted at an .edu site (attacking religion using resources aided by federal funding, interestingly enough). To the contrary, it is very likely that the theme park organizers believe the vision they present. Is the effort misguided? I think it probably is, to a large degree. But should it be against federal law to take a voluntary public school club there? That seems a bit much, and you haven't done a very good job of making the case. Am I not dealing with your attempt to present evidence? That's OK. Since everyone agrees with you that Paszkiewicz is, in effect, always saying that he wants to break the law I'm sure that somebody who agrees with you will step up to the plate with evidence. I will continue to eagerly await the presentation of at least some reasonable evidence in support of the attack on Paszkiewicz.