 |
| |
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Being doubtful is very different to being stupid! |
Yep. However, being doubtful requires you to add a "because ..." after your assertion.
And "because I don't understand it" is not a valid argument.
quote:
However people are calling those who do not believe in evolution stupid, when in fact all they are being is critical. |
The day I meet someone with an actual argument, fine. Until then, I'll stick to my assertion.
quote:
Would you blindly accept RJ's statement? |
In and by itself? Unless I had a reason to doubt either the statement or Rogan, yes. If I had that reason, I would check the scientific literature. If the scientific literature (i.e. the experts) agree with Rogan, I'm forced to either accept his statement, or actually present a valid scientific reason as to why he is wrong.
Of course, if the scientific community doesn't agree on a subject, such as for example Molecular Orbital Theory vs. Valense Bond Theory, I do not have to take sides. I could state that since the scientific community does not agree, I can choose not to put my faith in either side.
But in cases where such a disagreement does not exist, such as evolution, that option is not open to me.
You see?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
SD,
Actually, yes it does. If it doesn't make sense to you, it is because you haven't taken the time to understand it. Electing to disbelieve an expert in a subject you know nothing about is stupid.
I'm not saying that you have to take the experts word as gospel. But if are going to actively disagree, you must have something more than "I just don't get it". |
And you are an arrogant putz and rude to boot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
If it doesn't make sense to you, it is because you haven't taken the time to understand it. |
You can understand a theory and not see it correctly relating to the real world. If a theory is wrong then it doesn't make sense. If a theory is good, but not quite right, it may not make sense to some. i.e it leaves unanswered questions.
quote:
However, being doubtful requires you to add a "because ..." after your assertion. |
If a theory is self consistent and viable, but lacks evidence, then being doubtful is an acceptable position, despite their being no contrary evidence.
quote:
And "because I don't understand it" is not a valid argument. |
Because "I am yet to be convinced" would be acceptable I would have thought. (not convinced due to lack of understanding or knowledge, but not convinced of the conclusion drawn from the evidence).
quote:
The day I meet someone with an actual argument, fine. Until then, I'll stick to my assertion. |
The onus of proof is on the proposer. If the naysayer has valid reservations about a conclusion, they should not be called stupid just because they have an unpopular opinion.
quote:
Of course, if the scientific community doesn't agree on a subject, such as for example Molecular Orbital Theory vs. Valense Bond Theory, I do not have to take sides. I could state that since the scientific community does not agree, I can choose not to put my faith in either side.
But in cases where such a disagreement does not exist, such as evolution, that option is not open to me.
|
The scientific community may agree on a theory, but that does not mean that the theory does not have flaws that require further explanation. Additionally, generally accepted truths have often been overturned, and a new sometimes radical theory adopted.
quote:
Well, science is rude. Science doesn't care if you get your feelings hurt. Science is either right or wrong |
My feelings aren't hurt, but thanks for caring about them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:23
|
|
SD
quote:
You can understand a theory and not see it correctly relating to the real world. If a theory is wrong then it doesn't make sense. If a theory is good, but not quite right, it may not make sense to some. i.e it leaves unanswered questions.
|
Not really. Science is sufficiently complicated that 'common sense' just doesn't work. If you believe that a scientifically accepted theory is in conflict with reality, it is more likely that your interpretation of reality is wrong than the scientific theory...
quote:
If a theory is self consistent and viable, but lacks evidence, then being doubtful is an acceptable position. |
Well, the "..." following "because" would then be "it lacks evidence", right?
quote:
Because "I am yet to be convinced" would be acceptable I would have thought. (not convinced due to lack of understanding or knowledge, but not convinced of the conclusion drawn from the evidence |
Yes, but then you must motivate why you are yet unconvinced. This is just referring the argument one step.
quote:
The onus of proof is on the proposer. |
Evolution has gone from a hypothesis to a theory. In the world of scientific language, this is equivalent to evolution being proven. Thus, if you want to dispute evolution, you have to show something that actually disproves the evolution theory.
quote:
If the naysayer has valid reservations about a conclusion, they should not be called stupid just because they have an unpopular opinion. |
But now you snuck in an extra word there: Valid. Obviously, a valid reservation would be OK. What we are debating, however, are people without valid reservations.
quote:
The scientific community may agree on a theory, but that does not mean that the theory does not have flaws that require further explanation. |
Depends on what you mean with a flaw. If they actually invalidate the theory, it is not a theory anymore. (if, for example, an apple floated upwards every once in a while, Newtons theory of gravity would be invalidated). In some cases you will have to narrow down the theory to only a subset of what it was thought to cover.
But pray tell, how many scientific theories are there that have been conclusively overturned in the last 200 years? Not even Newtownian mechanics are disproven, just redefined to cover a statistical sample instead of individual molecules.
quote:
My feelings aren't hurt, but thanks for caring about them. |
aaaaw, come on, I wasn't talking to you. I think you are perfectly aware that we have been using 'you' in the third person.
Jimmytricks little comment pissed me off though... Hence the blunt hammer of 'accept reality'.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ironikinit
Rogan Josh, are you and your wife French? |
No. I am British and my wife is German. We live in France (hence the French flag) and both work in Switzerland.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Now, a creationist biology graduate student is lacking in the first two departments: critical and analytical thinking.
But this has nothing to do with creationism per se. If he believed that horses breathed ammonia, or whales spoke cantonese, or the citric acid cycle could only work via magic, he would not be suitable for a PhD either...
|
That is not true, on a number of levels.
First of all, Creationism cannot be disproven. This is a matter of principle, because if one brings an omnipotant God into the picture all things are possible (by definition). So this is entirely different from your ammonia-breathing-horses (which can be disproved).
Secondly, believing in creation is a religious belief - not a scientific one. The PhD student can observe the scientific data and deduce exactly what that data imply. They can even make models (based on data) which would allow them to make predictions about what sort of fossils one would expect to see, and go and test those models. (Actually this is a bit of a sore point, since evolutionary biologists seem remarkably lax in their scientific method...) But that does not mean they have to believe these models to be a true description of what happened!
In other words, they may adopt a philosophy which is different from yours without denying the data or giving up critical thought. This philosophy is in no way contradictory to the scientific method, so by denying them their PhD because if it would be inherently wrong.
Let me give you a more transparent example. In my line of work, it is often useful to ask what string theories or M-theory imply about low energy physics. We have absolutely no direct evidence that these theories are correct, but often they manifest themselves at low energies exactly as we see things in experiment. But that could just be coincidence (or even theorist bias). If I were to believe is some totally different theory at high energies which was contradictory to the String Theories I would not be regarded as a nutter. Even if that theory at first sight (ie. taking simplistic alogorithms for low scale extrapolation) contradicted low energy data.
This is somewhat different from the evolution/creation case of course. On the one hand, the creation case is stronger because it can never be disproven, whereas the high-energy theory of physics will one day be know. On the other hand, creationism should not be thought of as a scientific theory at all since it makes no predictions - it is completely useless when confronting the data. But that does not make it 'wrong'.
On the topic of GR. It is not that scientists think it is wrong - just that it is not applicable everywhere. We have known for a long time that it does not work at very small distances. If one tries to use it to calculate the gravitational effects in an atom it will give the wrong answer. We would need a theory of quantum gravity for that. The recent speculation about GR has been initiated by the data which seem to imply that the universe in accelerating outwards. Some people claim that this is really due to GR being wrong at very large distances. (I would disagree with this view.) But they still think it works fine for the distances in between these two extremes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
But pray tell, how many scientific theories are there that have been conclusively overturned in the last 200 years? Not even Newtownian mechanics are disproven, just redefined to cover a statistical sample instead of individual molecules.
|
I can think of lots of theories in particle physics which had just as much evidence as Darwinian evolution, but have now been disproven. As I mentioned earlier, it often turns out that theories predict the same things, so what we thought was evidence for a particular theory was really only evidence for a class of theories.
Even the Standard Model of particle physics (which was the best tested theory ever) has been disproven by the discovery of neutrino masses.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The evolution/creation debate is fruitless because each side is defining the words differently. For once, I even agree with Boris. A "creationist" believes the world was created. Pretty simple really. But for some reason people insist in calling them all fanatical right wing fundamentalists who believe the world is flat. Moderation really is a virtue. Galelio was a "creationist" in case anyone forgot. The issue is not evolution it is the origin of the universe and the life that is within it. If one believes this came about as a result of design he is a creationist. Logic is on his side regardless of the slander he receives from those who have an undying faith in accidents and the magical abilities of matter turning into meaningful information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
If evolution is a fact what a curious method for God to use in creating the universe.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-10-2002 06:38
|