Rilke's Granddaughter
Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
Randy said, | Quote | | So evolution is falsifiable? Hmm..I always thought it wasn't. |
You were mistaken. All scientific theories are falsifiable. That's why I don't consider string theory to be a valid scientific theory (as yet).
| Quote | | I want to clarify my previous point about peer review. I've become far more skeptical of 'consensus science' because of the global warming debate. Far more so than evolution. You start following the grant money on both sides and things get really dicey. Then you start seeing grandiose claims that "all scientists agree". You can find people with all the right letters and doctorates after their name disagreeing with 'consensus science'. So anyway, my issues with peer reviewed science are more concerned with climatology than evolutionary biology. Several scientists (again, they have all the right letters after their names) have said Al Gore goes WAYYYY too far and defies scientific reason in his latest movie...(but I see here I'm danger of thread drift, so I'll move on - I just wanted to clarify the background of my previous remark). |
Yes, this is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution. The biggest problem with the climate data is that there is so little of it, and the models are very, very poor.
| Quote | | The biggest problem in discussing this issue, in my opinion, is that it's very hard for any layperson (or even a fairly scientific literate person in another specialty) to be in any kind of position to debate some of these areas. |
Not at all. What you need to make sure that you do is leave your agenda (if any) at the door. That's what AFDave can't do - everything has to conform to the literal reading of the Bible for it to be valid, so of course he has to discard any rational argument that is made that contradicts it. Even a layman can get the basics and gist of the science in evolutionary theory fairly quickly - enough to discuss it intelligently.
What we see far too often in boards such as this are morons like Dave who are incapable of learning, and incapable of critical thinking. If you've got those skills, you'll do fine.
| Quote | | I saw in the amazon reviews of Ernst Mayr's book some criticisms that if you didn't have a big background in biology, you'd be lost. We are like the crowd in the arena watching our teams go at it and cheering for 'our side'. But just because we can Monday Morning quarterback doesn't mean we are qualified to strap on the helmet ourselves. |
The interesting thing is that the usual counter-arguments offered by fundie's like Dave are invalid considered as arguments. They're pretty much at the level of "Well, the Bible was written in Swahili, so that means that John the Baptist was the man who murdered Moses' children".
They really are that bad. You don't need to be a Biblical scholar to dismantle arguments like that.
| Quote | | The theme seems to be: "we've spent x years in school, then graduate, then post doctorate on this. Either match my level of education, or just take my word that I'm smart and you're dumb and that I know what's best for you". |
Nope. I promise we don't do that. And if you can find an example, then draw our attention to it.
| Quote | | Then you get someone else saying "He's not smart. I have the same degree and the first guy is full of it". How can you possibly, even with reasonably good faculties of reason, evaluate the claims and counterclaims of two (or more) people who all have respected degrees and hold respected positions in their fields? You can't. You can't rewind the clock and spend your life getting the same degree they have. So you are forced to pick the side that either a) has the most adherents, or b) makes the best argument, from your limited vantage point. |
The main point is to examine the arguments, not necessarily the details of the biology. Most creationist arguments fail because they are bad arguments and secondarily because they're ignorant of biology.
| Quote | | I'm uncomfortable with both options. A is the appeal to consensus science and the infallibility of popular opinion (which doesn't have the greatest track record). B is the somewhat egotistical idea that I can read two books from two PhD's in Biology or Biochemistry or whatever, and, without having their level of education, deduce which of them is right and which of them is wrong. |
You probably can't just by reading the books. Discussing the content is usually helpful, too.
Remember: check your agenda at the door; examine the arguments for logic errors; admit only valid data.
| Quote | | It's a source of endless frustration. Accusations here that they are practicing pseudo-science or have 'abandoned scientific method' fall generally flat on me. |
But we can, and often do, demonstrate that they have abandoned the scientific method.
Let's take a trivial example from Behe:
Behe says that IC structures can't evolve. But in the same book, he also admits that IC structures can evolve, it's just not probable. But he never provides any probability estimates.
Even someone without much understanding of biology and evolution can see that is a flawed argument; and it has nothing to do with his religious convictions.
| Quote | | I mean, what else would I *expect* to be said here? Of COURSE you're going to say that! Do I have the the background to either bash or verify the claims Behe makes? Or Dawkins? Or anyone else? |
Yes. Any intelligent, rational adult who's willing to expend a little study can distinguish between 'good' arguments and 'bad' arguments.
| Quote | | Sorry, maybe I'm just getting cynical here, but it seems that the academics on both sides are just saying: "either get my degree and debate me, or take my word for it". |
Try us and see. We're mostly polite (except for AFDave, but then, he's technically on your side. We won't hold that against you, though.  )
|
