Jump to content

David Paszkiewicz's idea of science


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

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?

You dare to question your GOD ALMIGHTY? Just for that I'm telling Santa not to bring you that T-Rex and saddle you wanted for Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest
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.

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.

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.

The scientists didn't go there on a public school bus. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

By the way, the linked article says everything about the students' attitudes toward evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dare to question your GOD ALMIGHTY? Just for that I'm telling Santa not to bring you that T-Rex and saddle you wanted for Christmas.

Meh. I asked for an Allosaurus. One would think the "ALMIGHTY" would remember the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scientists didn't go there on a public school bus. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I didn't say anything about a public school bus. But while we're at it, please provide the evidence you have that the scientists did not ride on a public school bus since that is what you claimed. If you don't really know then you can admit it. I won't make fun of you.

By the way, the linked article says everything about the students' attitudes toward evolution.

Of course it does. And anyone who disagrees is ignoring the obvious evidence that you coincidentally refuse to specifically share. Isn't that always the way. It helps protect your illogical inferences, you suppose, behind a handy-dandy smokescreen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I didn't say anything about a public school bus. But while we're at it, please provide the evidence you have that the scientists did not ride on a public school bus since that is what you claimed. If you don't really know then you can admit it. I won't make fun of you.

Of course it does. And anyone who disagrees is ignoring the obvious evidence that you coincidentally refuse to specifically share. Isn't that always the way. It helps protect your illogical inferences, you suppose, behind a handy-dandy smokescreen.

So let's make sure we understand you, Bryan.

1. You're not defending the "museum," but only calling people for saying it's anti-scientific.

2. Your definition of anti-scientific is met by any reference to science anywhere in the "museum," never mind that its core premise is contrary to all scientific methods.

Meanwhile:

3. You want proof that adult scientists with real jobs didn't go there on public school bus, even though there's no reason at all why they would.

4. You ignore the fact that there is no reason to think that the scientists relied on public funding or facilities in any way, which is the only point your ridiculous argument seems to be aimed at.

5. You want proof that a group of high school students in Paszkiewicz's Christian club traveled 1,500 miles, round trip, to the Creationist Ignorance Emporium for some reason other than to explore its central theme, which is also one of Paszkiewicz's favorite talking points - namely, that evolution does not merit belief - even though the student who wrote the letter said that's exactly why they went.

You're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul

To address the only halfway serious question Bryan is asking, the answer is no. This theme park is not scientific just because it presents some of the conclusions of some current scientific theories.

By analogy, politicians often present some of their opponents' positions. Often, they distort them. The mere fact that a politician presents his opponent's argument doesn't mean that he isn't "anti" his opponent.

Science is a method. This theme park is telling people that the Bible is a more reliable way of knowing about the natural world than science, which it calls "human reason." That is both a distortion of what science is, and thoroughly anti-scientific. This theme park is fostering a disrespect for science. Anyone who cares about education should be horrified by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To address the only halfway serious question Bryan is asking, the answer is no. This theme park is not scientific just because it presents some of the conclusions of some current scientific theories.

The question was whether it was reasonably called "anti-science" if it presents some of the conclusions of current scientific theories.

By analogy, politicians often present some of their opponents' positions. Often, they distort them. The mere fact that a politician presents his opponent's argument doesn't mean that he isn't "anti" his opponent.

I've used a number of examples. Once, I cited the representations of dinosaurs using their tails aloft for balance. There is no apparent disagreement on this point at all, and nothing distorted so far as I can tell.

Paul's analogy conveniently uses politicians, where the antagonism may be assumed even if all policy positions are identical (as may happen in a primary). It's a slick rhetorical trick, even if it is a tad transparent.

Science is a method. This theme park is telling people that the Bible is a more reliable way of knowing about the natural world than science, which it calls "human reason."

The museum isn't using "human reason" to mean "science" in terms of the scientific method generally speaking. As I have earlier explained, "human reason" is Christianese for flawed thinking. Human reason is viewed as limited by the fall of mankind, and will thus tend to err.

That is both a distortion of what science is, and thoroughly anti-scientific.

Well, if we make a straw man out it, yeah. But the museum's statement is not that the Bible is more reliable than science in learning about the natural world, it is simply that the Bible is accurate as to its statements about the natural world. If the Bible says nothing about dinosaur tails, then by all means use science to learn about dinosaur tails.

And that's "thoroughly anti-scientific"? Or is it just humanist zealot Paul LaClair frothing at the mouth at least to the point of utilizing hyperbole to make his point?

This theme park is fostering a disrespect for science. Anyone who cares about education should be horrified by it.

Mad dog! Rrrrrruff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's make sure we understand you, Bryan.

One can almost take that statement as an indication that the challenges from me (the ones you quoted for some reason) will go unmet.

1. You're not defending the "museum," but only calling people for saying it's anti-scientific.

The latter is my point, and it represents a partial defense of the museum. That point does not obligate me to defend positions with which I do not agree. The associated point is that the museum is not offensive to me even though I disagree with YEC, and that I think Paul is essentially silly for making a big deal about it. A weekend at a museum is very probably not going to have a significant effect on a student's understanding of science, in spite of the Chicken Little response one sees from some of the folks here.

2. Your definition of anti-scientific is met by any reference to science anywhere in the "museum," never mind that its core premise is contrary to all scientific methods.

Had a rough time composing that one, eh?

The use of science with implicit approval, as seen, for example, with the physical representations of the dinosaurs, indicates a pro-science attitude, at least in part. I don't agree that its core premise is contrary to "all" scientific methods, and that point should have been obvious since I have pointed out more than once that Popperian criteria are often excepted here and there in accepted science. In case you don't see the importance of that point, I'll spell it out for you: An exception to scientific criterion is not a dependable indication that something is anti-science, let alone unscientific.

Meanwhile:

3. You want proof that adult scientists with real jobs didn't go there on public school bus, even though there's no reason at all why they would.

Meh. The report says the scientists traveled on school buses. Most universities charter buses, and if the school in this case had chartered buses then there was no good reason to call them "school buses." So there is an indication that the scientists rode on public school buses. I can certainly understand how you would want to ignore that, of course. Pretending otherwise might just get you off the hook for backing up the unambiguous claim of your twin ("Guest"):

"The scientists didn't go there on a public school bus."

4. You ignore the fact that there is no reason to think that the scientists relied on public funding or facilities in any way, which is the only point your ridiculous argument seems to be aimed at.

Most colleges and universities receive public funding, and regardless of that I have explained to you why it is reasonable to think that the scientists may have used public school buses.

5. You want proof that a group of high school students in Paszkiewicz's Christian club traveled 1,500 miles, round trip, to the Creationist Ignorance Emporium for some reason other than to explore its central theme, which is also one of Paszkiewicz's favorite talking points - namely, that evolution does not merit belief - even though the student who wrote the letter said that's exactly why they went.

What letter?

You mean this?

http://www.theobserver.com/articles/2009/0...5d700078863.txt

Read the URL: "articles" "news"--it looks like a student-submitted story to me based on the URL and the content (no "Dear editor" among other things). The author says nothing about the students traveling to the museum to examine the theme that evolution does not merit belief.

Here is the mention of evolution:

The Creation Museum features exhibits, planetariums and outdoor life that actively challenge evolution and intelligently support the Biblical account of creation.

That line meets the requirements of objective news reporting except for "intelligently support," which amounts to an editorial judgment. Take out the word "intelligently" and the New York Times might print the same line in a story about the museum.

Your conclusion, in short, is illogical.

You're an idiot.

You have a tendency to resort to ad hominem.

Now keep avoiding my challenge, you hear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The question was whether it was reasonably called "anti-science" if it presents some of the conclusions of current scientific theories.

The answer is yes because the Ignorance Emporium casts aside the scientific method and relies on the Bible as its authority on matters of science.

I've used a number of examples. Once, I cited the representations of dinosaurs using their tails aloft for balance. There is no apparent disagreement on this point at all, and nothing distorted so far as I can tell.

Then you haven't been paying attention. You have been told many times why the mere presentation of some facts in a collection of misleading exhibits can be anti-scientific. In this instance, it is.

Paul's analogy conveniently uses politicians, where the antagonism may be assumed even if all policy positions are identical (as may happen in a primary). It's a slick rhetorical trick, even if it is a tad transparent.

It’s not a rhetorical trick, it’s the truth. The founder of the Ignorance Emporium makes no secret of his disdain for science in the linked video. People who are hell-bent on defending biblical interpretations of everything will often engage in the tactics seen at the Ignorance Emporium. Anything that threatens their beliefs is the enemy and may be attacked, which is what they’ve done.

The museum isn't using "human reason" to mean "science" in terms of the scientific method generally speaking. As I have earlier explained, "human reason" is Christianese for flawed thinking. Human reason is viewed as limited by the fall of mankind, and will thus tend to err.

Of course not. They're not going to make an intellectually honest argument. Instead, they launch a stealth attack on science by calling its conclusions into question in order to advocate the Bible as their authority. Meanwhile, they want nothing to do with the scientific method, which is why never mention it, mentioning instead only their twisted take on science’s conclusions. One way to attack science is to distort it and leave out its most important parts. That's why the Ignorance Emporium is ignorant in its essence. You just made the argument and you don’t realize it.

Well, if we make a straw man out it, yeah. But the museum's statement is not that the Bible is more reliable than science in learning about the natural world, it is simply that the Bible is accurate as to its statements about the natural world. If the Bible says nothing about dinosaur tails, then by all means use science to learn about dinosaur tails.

False. The Ignorance Emporium explicitly promotes the Bible as a source of authority over science. They are proposing direct contradictions between the two, and there is no doubt which side they want their visitors to take.

And that's "thoroughly anti-scientific"? Or is it just humanist zealot Paul LaClair frothing at the mouth at least to the point of utilizing hyperbole to make his point?

There’s no hyperbole. When you take the method out of science, you take away science. You don't see it that way. OK, but scientists do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The latter is my point, and it represents a partial defense of the museum. That point does not obligate me to defend positions with which I do not agree. The associated point is that the museum is not offensive to me even though I disagree with YEC, and that I think Paul is essentially silly for making a big deal about it. A weekend at a museum is very probably not going to have a significant effect on a student's understanding of science, in spite of the Chicken Little response one sees from some of the folks here.

A weekend at the Ignorance Emporium (it’s hardly a museum!) will reinforce an ignorant world view. Kids don’t need that. They need a solid education.

The use of science with implicit approval, as seen, for example, with the physical representations of the dinosaurs, indicates a pro-science attitude, at least in part. I don't agree that its core premise is contrary to "all" scientific methods, and that point should have been obvious since I have pointed out more than once that Popperian criteria are often excepted here and there in accepted science. In case you don't see the importance of that point, I'll spell it out for you: An exception to scientific criterion is not a dependable indication that something is anti-science, let alone unscientific.

Science’s methods are completely ignored. The exhibition is rotten to the core.

The Ignorance Emporium uses science to the extent that the Bible isn't contradicted. That's not consistent with scientific method but a direct attack on it. It's like working on a math problem and then completely fudging the answer when you can't get to it mathematically. It's like jumping halfway across a canyon.

What letter?

You mean this?

http://www.theobserver.com/articles/2009/0...5d700078863.txt

Read the URL: "articles" "news"--it looks like a student-submitted story to me based on the URL and the content (no "Dear editor" among other things). The author says nothing about the students traveling to the museum to examine the theme that evolution does not merit belief.

Here is the mention of evolution:

The Creation Museum features exhibits, planetariums and outdoor life that actively challenge evolution and intelligently support the Biblical account of creation.

That line meets the requirements of objective news reporting except for "intelligently support," which amounts to an editorial judgment. Take out the word "intelligently" and the New York Times might print the same line in a story about the museum.

Your conclusion, in short, is illogical.

Your reading of the student’s letter is ridiculous. She is clearly advocating Paszkiewicz’s point of view and she clearly doesn't appreciate what she must have been taught in science class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Bryan, you're like a little kid who keeps asking the same question and keeps ignoring the answer because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

You've asked whether an exhibition can be anti-scientific when it presents some scientific data but ignores the scientific method. The answer is yes.

Science is all about the method, Bryan. That's not a hard point to understand if you want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Put this in practical terms.

If you have a blocked coronary artery, you get a cardiac surgeon to take care of it. He gets his information from medical textbooks, not the Bible.

If you need your car fixed, you take it to an auto mechanic. If he needs technical information, he looks it up in an automotive manual, not the Bible.

If you want to fly to London, you hire a trained pilot who was trained by flying airplanes and reading about flight. He didn’t get that information from the Bible.

If your child has a serious infection, you treat her with medications prescribed by a doctor who gained his knowledge from medical textbooks, research and practice. The Bible has nothing to do with it and nothing to add.

The only difference with evolution and the age of the universe is that people don’t see the direct application to their lives, but if they did almost no one would be idiotic enough to say the Bible tells you about any of these things. In fact, if a parent denies medical to treatment to a sick child and the child dies as a result, the parent can go to prison.

It’s a crime. Criminal stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Bryan, you're like a little kid who keeps asking the same question and keeps ignoring the answer because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

You've asked whether an exhibition can be anti-scientific when it presents some scientific data but ignores the scientific method. The answer is yes.

Science is all about the method, Bryan. That's not a hard point to understand if you want to.

Google search for “science is a method”

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...is-imagination/

http://www.scientificmethod.com/sm3_whatissm.html

http://astro.gmu.edu/classes/a10594/notes/l04/l04.html

http://www.valdosta.edu/~cbarnbau/phys_math/science.html

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplemen...o_process-b.htm

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testin...sub_envsci.html

http://ncseweb.org/media/voices/national-s...ssociation-1997

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

http://royalsociety.org/bookspage.asp?id=6333

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is yes because the Ignorance Emporium casts aside the scientific method and relies on the Bible as its authority on matters of science.

I've given counterexamples and you are ignoring them.

Not very scientific of you.

I've used a number of examples. Once, I cited the representations of dinosaurs using their tails aloft for balance. There is no apparent disagreement on this point at all, and nothing distorted so far as I can tell.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Where did you disagree that dinosaurs hold their tails aloft for balance? Or have you taken my comment out of context?

You have been told many times why the mere presentation of some facts in a collection of misleading exhibits can be anti-scientific. In this instance, it is.

Great. Then since this thread is still a relatively short seven pages in length, it should be relatively easy for you to link to one of those many times and thus prove me wrong.

Hopefully you won't have to rely on one of the miserably failed attempts. Good luck to you.

It’s not a rhetorical trick, it’s the truth.

An analogy is by definition different in at least some respects from the situation to which the comparison is intended. It is a rhetorical trick to establish the supposed opposition by analogy instead of via the actual situation, and attempts at the latter have been notably weak.

The founder of the Ignorance Emporium makes no secret of his disdain for science in the linked video.

Look up "genetic fallacy." And if you're already familiar with it, it would be appropriate for you to redden with embarrassment.

Pardon me for editing out the portion where you delve more directly into ad hominem.

Of course not. They're not going to make an intellectually honest argument. Instead, they launch a stealth attack on science by calling its conclusions into question in order to advocate the Bible as their authority.

Aha! The dreaded stealth attack! That's what makes it so hard to pin down the anti-science bits! Those devious Xtians r stealthy. But you are smart enough to see past the stealth, enough, perhaps (assuming it wasn't another "Guest" who said it) to pronounce the obviousness of the stealth attack. Anyone can see it except for me. :)

Give you folks enough time and it's a pretty sure bet you'll talk yourselves in circles.

Meanwhile, they want nothing to do with the scientific method, which is why never mention it, mentioning instead only their twisted take on science’s conclusions.

Have you been to the museum, that you can unequivocally state that they never mention the scientific method? AIG certainly does, and they do a reasonably good job of presenting it:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

One way to attack science is to distort it and leave out its most important parts. That's why the Ignorance Emporium is ignorant in its essence.

What is "distorted and left out," specifically, that we should conclude that the museum attacks science?

You just made the argument and you don’t realize it.

Tell what argument you're talking about and I'll tell you if you're right. :)

False. The Ignorance Emporium explicitly promotes the Bible as a source of authority over science. They are proposing direct contradictions between the two, and there is no doubt which side they want their visitors to take.

You're saying that they explicitly promotes the Bible as a source of authority over science. Where is that explicitly done? Your argument depends greatly on the former in order to support your conclusion.

There’s no hyperbole. When you take the method out of science, you take away science. You don't see it that way. OK, but scientists do.

Scientists with a reasonable amount of knowledge regarding the philosophy of science do see it my way, because they're aware that exceptions to Popperian criteria are nearly common enough to establish a rule. I don't blame you for continuing to ignore that point. It's a huge problem for you, so pretending that it doesn't exist is probably your best strategy.

See the portion on Kuhn and paradigm shifts in particular:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A weekend at the Ignorance Emporium (it’s hardly a museum!) will reinforce an ignorant world view. Kids don’t need that. They need a solid education.

Hmmm. Apparently you're willing to dictate to them what they can and cannot do. Shall we go ahead and amend the First Amendment while we're at it?

Science’s methods are completely ignored. The exhibition is rotten to the core.

Do you think that uniformitarian assumption is unfairly cited as part of the method used in the evolutionary account of origins? If not, how can you claim that science's methods are completely ignored? Without lying, of course.

The Ignorance Emporium uses science to the extent that the Bible isn't contradicted. That's not consistent with scientific method but a direct attack on it.

If it were the case that the scientific method is directly attacked, then what of the use of science to the extent that the Bible isn't contradicted? Does that magically no longer count?

It's like working on a math problem and then completely fudging the answer when you can't get to it mathematically. It's like jumping halfway across a canyon.

And thus any correct answers given were not through reliance on math and the first half of the canyon jump no longer count for anything?

Your reading of the student’s letter is ridiculous.

Why do you think it is a letter?

My reading of the letter, quite frankly, is brilliant. Take the portion that I said would fit the standards at the NYT and tell me where I'm wrong. Unless you're chicken. :)

She is clearly advocating Paszkiewicz’s point of view and she clearly doesn't appreciate what she must have been taught in science class.

It's fun just saying something is "clearly" there instead of pointing to specifics, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan, you're like a little kid who keeps asking the same question and keeps ignoring the answer because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

You've asked whether an exhibition can be anti-scientific when it presents some scientific data but ignores the scientific method. The answer is yes.

Oh. And I should just accept that without explanation?

Science is all about the method, Bryan. That's not a hard point to understand if you want to.

So why aren't you dealing with the demarcation problem that throws a huge spanner in the works of your argument?

Is it just easier to say I'm like a little kid and leave it like that? Kind of like what people do when they're in middle school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Here's the single most dishonest thing in the Creationist Ignorance Emporium.

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2344.html

The people who wrote this have themselves decided what to believe. They just won't admit it, and to make matters worse, they call whatever they have chosen to believe God's word. That's not just arrogant, but if you believe in a God, it's blasphemous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the single most dishonest thing in the Creationist Ignorance Emporium.

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2344.html

The people who wrote this have themselves decided what to believe. They just won't admit it, and to make matters worse, they call whatever they have chosen to believe God's word. That's not just arrogant, but if you believe in a God, it's blasphemous.

Thanks for the pop theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I've given counterexamples and you are ignoring them.

Not very scientific of you.

You're a prime example of a (very) little knowledge being a dangerous thing. You know big words but you don't know how they fit in. Counterexamples aren’t enough when its main thrust is to say that the Bible can be used in place of science. The mere fact that they accept some science doesn’t mean that they understand scientific method or accept it as the only way of learning about the natural world, which it is. The point has been made repeatedly that you can't solve a math problem by doing the first few steps and fudging the rest. It's a point you have consistently ignored for obvious reasons.

Great. Then since this thread is still a relatively short seven pages in length, it should be relatively easy for you to link to one of those many times and thus prove me wrong.

Hopefully you won't have to rely on one of the miserably failed attempts. Good luck to you.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97181 There have been many others. You didn’t argue against these observations, you just asked questions about them. The links make the point clearly.

Have you been to the museum, that you can unequivocally state that they never mention the scientific method? AIG certainly does, and they do a reasonably good job of presenting it:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

They don’t present it. They just distort it. This link is an argument for supernaturalist explanations for natural phenomena. It’s an attack on evolution from a non-scientific perspective. One of the questions at the bottom asks why evolution should be taught in the schools but not creationism. There are at least two compelling answers to this question. One is that evolution is science and creationism is not. For a good explanation of this, see http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

The other is that creationism doesn’t increase anyone’s fund of knowledge. It can’t be tested or verified, it doesn’t make any useful predictions and it hasn’t contributed a thing to medicine or any other body of science. Evolution meets all those tests with flying colors, which is why scientists are practically universal in their acceptance of it, to such an extent that evolution is identified as the organizing principle for all of biology.

A related point is that evolutionary theory was developed not because people decided in advance that they wanted to believe it; just the opposite, until the 19th century, virtually no one had ever considered evolution. It was developed because that is where the evidence leads. By contrast, the only thing “supporting” creationism is that this is what people wish to believe. Of the two, the discovery of evolutionary theory has the far more compelling claim to truth.

The link whines about various forms of science, and yet by following scientific method, scientists have revolutionized the world. Anyone can make an argument, Bryan, as you prove here every time you write. It is quite another matter to back that argument up with facts. Evolutionary theory, and science in general, have the facts on their side, including a history of progress and development. Theology and creationism have none of that.

Scientists with a reasonable amount of knowledge regarding the philosophy of science do see it my way, because they're aware that exceptions to Popperian criteria are nearly common enough to establish a rule. I don't blame you for continuing to ignore that point. It's a huge problem for you, so pretending that it doesn't exist is probably your best strategy.

See the portion on Kuhn and paradigm shifts in particular:

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

Bryan, if you would bother reading the links you post, you might see that they don’t support your argument. No reputable scientists says that creationism is a substitute for science. Here’s the essence of your problem. The quotation can be found under the section on Kuhn in your link: “Kuhn instead argued that a new paradigm is accepted mainly because it has a superior ability to solve problems that arise in the process of doing normal science.” Creationism doesn’t solve any problems. Evolutionary theory does, as demonstrated by its numerous applications in medicine and its entry into the study of every dynamic system, including the social sciences.

You keep making the same mistake over and over, Bryan. You’re so enamored with your philosophy that you’ve neglected to take a look at the world and see whether anything actually supports your claims. And you still haven’t addressed the fact that without scientific method, there is no science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Oh. And I should just accept that without explanation?

No, you should open your mind (for once), consider the possibility that you might be wrong (for once) and then admit the fact that an exhibition can be anti-scientific when it presents some scientific conclusions but attacks others, distorts what science is and proposes the Bible as a source of learning about the natural world when it is obviously no such thing. Most people who believe in the Bible would agree with that.

Besides, you got the explanation in the next sentence and chose to change the subject. See the following:

So why aren't you dealing with the demarcation problem that throws a huge spanner in the works of your argument?

Because it has nothing to do with the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Hmmm. Apparently you're willing to dictate to them what they can and cannot do. Shall we go ahead and amend the First Amendment while we're at it?

Putting words in someone else's mouth is dishonest, Bryan. No one has suggested that the Ignorance Emporium should be outlawed, just that it promotes ignorance and that a parent or educator who wanted to educate children wouldn't endorse it.

Do you think that uniformitarian assumption is unfairly cited as part of the method used in the evolutionary account of origins? If not, how can you claim that science's methods are completely ignored? Without lying, of course.

If it were the case that the scientific method is directly attacked, then what of the use of science to the extent that the Bible isn't contradicted? Does that magically no longer count?

You're fudging the math problem again. You can't intelligently apply scientific method when it tells you what you want to hear and ignore it when it doesn't.

And thus any correct answers given were not through reliance on math and the first half of the canyon jump no longer count for anything?

Well, Bryan, I wouldn't count a jump halfway across a canyon as a jump across the canyon. But you be our guest and try it out.

It won't get you across the canyon. And using just the science that supports what you want to hear won't get you a reliable answer. The science they accept is fine, but accepting only what you want to believe isn't science. That's how to use an analogy honestly to make a point.

Why am I bothering with this idiot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Do you think that uniformitarian assumption is unfairly cited as part of the method used in the evolutionary account of origins? If not, how can you claim that science's methods are completely ignored? Without lying, of course.

If it were the case that the scientific method is directly attacked, then what of the use of science to the extent that the Bible isn't contradicted? Does that magically no longer count?

And thus any correct answers given were not through reliance on math and the first half of the canyon jump no longer count for anything?

It would count for something if they were honest about it, but they’re not. They’re dishonest about it.

If the canyon-jumper accurately calculated that he had enough energy to power himself halfway across the canyon, then set to work to find the remaining energy to complete the trip, that would be fine. But if he jumps, he’s likely to kill himself.

If the math student solved the problem as far as she could and then admitted that she couldn’t finish the solution, that would also be fine because it would be honest. Maybe someone could show her how to finish it. But if she walks around thinking that she solved the problem, then she’s training herself in bad habits.

By analogy, if the Ignorance Emporium offered the science it accepts and then admitted that it can’t explain the parts where it discards science, that would also be fine – but that’s not what they’re doing. They accept science when it supports them and discard it when it doesn’t. They try to jump the canyon without sufficient power and solve the math problem without necessary steps. They use science when it tells them what they want to hear and ignore it when it doesn’t.

That’s not just partially wrong. It’s completely wrong. It’s a wholesale denial of scientific method. It’s intellectually dishonest. Honest people don’t use science when it supports them and discard it when it doesn’t. That’s what the Ignorance Emporium is doing. That’s why it’s an attack on all of science. If you don’t understand that scientific method has to be applied consistently, then you’ve completely missed the point. In science, you can't have one set of rules for things you like and another set for things you don't like.

You’re really not getting this, are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would count for something if they were honest about it, but they’re not. They’re dishonest about it.

We have an extensive collection of photographs representing museum exhibits at our disposal. Can you be specific about the dishonesty you're talking about?

If the canyon-jumper accurately calculated that he had enough energy to power himself halfway across the canyon, then set to work to find the remaining energy to complete the trip, that would be fine. But if he jumps, he’s likely to kill himself.

Well, he could be smart enough to equip himself with safety features. Unless he's one of those idiot YECs? It doesn't ultimately come down to bigotry, does it?

If the math student solved the problem as far as she could and then admitted that she couldn’t finish the solution, that would also be fine because it would be honest. Maybe someone could show her how to finish it. But if she walks around thinking that she solved the problem, then she’s training herself in bad habits.

At this point you're stepping on the toes of scientists and science teachers. They often end up teaching things as true that are not true, as though they poorly understand the limitations of science (one reason why I favor giving greater emphasis to the philosophy of science in the science curriculum). Is it significantly easier to excuse the dishonesty of naturalistic scientists than it is the dishonesty of YECs?

By analogy, if the Ignorance Emporium offered the science it accepts and then admitted that it can’t explain the parts where it discards science, that would also be fine – but that’s not what they’re doing.

What type of thing are you talking about with the reference to "can't explain the parts where it discards science"?

They accept science when it supports them and discard it when it doesn’t.

They would say (fairly, in my view) that they are still doing science but with different presuppositions.

That’s not just partially wrong. It’s completely wrong. It’s a wholesale denial of scientific method.

You should explain what you mean by that in a way that helps resolve the demarcation problem.

It’s intellectually dishonest. Honest people don’t use science when it supports them and discard it when it doesn’t.

You need to put more meat on that accusation in order to make it seem fair. Deal with the demarcation problem. Even Paul LaClair has popped by from time to time to downplay the supposed rigors of the scientific method by referring to science as an "art." His argument (accidentally?) dovetails nicely with my observation that your side seems to know science when they see it, even if they can't explain what it is (art/obscenity parallel).

That’s what the Ignorance Emporium is doing. That’s why it’s an attack on all of science. If you don’t understand that scientific method has to be applied consistently, then you’ve completely missed the point. In science, you can't have one set of rules for things you like and another set for things you don't like.

You’re really not getting this, are you?

Nope. As long as you continue to dance around the demarcation problem your argument seems to pass as "I know science when I see it, and that isn't science."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
They would say (fairly, in my view) that they are still doing science but with different presuppositions.

No it doesn't. It comes down to the fact that young-earth creationists aren't doing science. See the below.

They would say (fairly, in my view) that they are still doing science but with different presuppositions.

Then you don't understand science. They're not doing science because they're not following scientific method. They are merely taking the conclusions from people who have done the science and claiming that the Bible says the same thing - even though people didn't figure these things out from the Bible but only after science did its work. So not only are they not following scientific method, but they are also ignoring history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Even Paul LaClair has popped by from time to time to downplay the supposed rigors of the scientific method by referring to science as an "art." His argument (accidentally?) dovetails nicely with my observation that your side seems to know science when they see it, even if they can't explain what it is (art/obscenity parallel).

Well, Bryan, you are hopelessly, miserably wrong yet again. The necessary interplay between the rigors of daily science and the artistic-like creative spurts of scientific advancement in no way suggests a contradiction. In their daily work, scientists must rigorously apply established methods. Occasionally someone has to step outside the usual parameters or paradigm and do something different, often on a hunch. There is no contradiction. They are two parts of the same thing.

Consider some examples. Einstein had a hunch that light didn’t necessarily travel in a straight line. He reasoned that if his hunch was true, light would seem to “bend” around an object that exerted a sufficient gravitational pull. So he observed an eclipse and proved that his hunch was correct. This was one of the greatest and most creative episodes in science. Einstein scores 100 on this one. http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp

Currently, some theoretical physicists postulate string theory as an explanation of the fundamental laws of physics. String theory is stuck in the hypothetical phase because no one has been able to test its claims. http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/brea...ated_66719.html

http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category...v472702sksHgKsp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzP6XhtAXo

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

Even if it is wrong, string theory is scientifically valuable because it has generated a creative discussion among scientists that is likely to spur discovery and innovation.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=684

Does string theory score 90? 70? 50? 30? 10? Depends on who you talk to but there is no doubt that it has sparked some fascinating debates among serious and brilliant scientists.

Now consider creationism. Scientifically, it scores a pathetic unvarnished zero. It hasn’t been verified, there isn’t a speck of evidence to support it, it hasn’t been shown to predict anything and it hasn’t contributed a fly poop to science.

Your argument is ridiculous, Bryan. You would be well-advised to refrain from criticizing someone else’s idea, especially when you don’t understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...