RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,14:59   

That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.

Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed.  

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10062
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:04   

"difference (sic) scientific perspectives"

As in redefine science to allow, astrology, etc?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:20   

Quote
In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

Well, if you'd like to inject a little science into our forum here, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people to discuss with. AFDave sure did.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:34   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:59)
But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.

I have.

And not just that one.

Or that one.

Or that one.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:42   

FtK, do you have any scientific training?

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:43   

Dave wrote:
“What part of "addressing you directly" is unclear to you?”

It was very clear that you were trying to get around the topic at hand.  I merely decided to stick to the original conversation and emphasize why I am not putting your comments through moderation at my blog.

you wrote:
“Was that post addressing you directly (i.e. commenting on things you said on your blog)? Or was it addressed to Richard and J-Dog and others? Since I was the one writing it, I'll have to vote for door #2 and conclude that I was not, at least in my own mind, addressing you directly.”

It really makes no difference who you were addressing.  It’s irrelevant.  You decided to post on this forum and chime in with the others.  It’s a bit hypocritical to assert that you are someone who is sincere and respectful and then find you here joining in with those who are not interested in respectful dialogue.

“You can bet that I am sincere; I sincerely desire a better understanding of the issues, both for me and for you. I don't know how insincerity can be the accusation when I post public messages on blogs that I know you read. How sneaky is that? “

It’s not “sneaky” at all.  Obviously, I can come here and read all of your comments about me as you join in with others who are prone to inappropriate ridicule.   It shows me that you aren’t sincere, because if you were, you would find more appropriate venues in which to discuss the scientific issues surrounding this debate.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:50   

FtK said,
Quote
It really makes no difference who you were addressing.  It’s irrelevant.  You decided to post on this forum and chime in with the others.  It’s a bit hypocritical to assert that you are someone who is sincere and respectful and then find you here joining in with those who are not interested in respectful dialogue.
in regards to this:
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,07:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

http://www.ksu.edu/biology/bio/faculty/rintoul/rintoul.html

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!

Ah, I see. The ridicule contained in the post above is what made FtK decide to hold up Albadave's posts. His association with CBEBs, I assume, necessarily makes him insincere.

Come on FtK, bring undo me the science! Show me a peer-reviewed paper that you've read and found impressive!

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10062
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:52   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,15:43)
It shows me that you aren’t sincere, because if you were you would find more appropriate venues in which to discuss the scientific issues surrounding this debate.

Like Uncommon Descent, for example.

There really isn't a 'debate' other than creationists trying to create a cultural movement.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,15:55   

Richard,

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, here.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10062
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:01   

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

Behe, would like to create his own scientific definitions.

Quote
I said, "Intelligent design does meet that?" And you said, "It's well substantiated, yes." And I said, "Let's be clear here, I'm asking -- looking at the definition of a scientific theory in its entirety, is it your position that intelligent design is a scientific theory?" And you said, going down to line 23, "I think one can argue these a variety of ways. For purposes of an answer to the -- relatively brief answer to the question, I will say that I don't think it falls under this." And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can't satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."

A Yes.

Q So for those reasons you said it's not -- doesn't meet the National Academy of Sciences definition.

A I think this text makes clear what I just said a minute or two ago, that I'm of several minds on this question. I started off saying one thing and changing my mind and then I explicitly said, "I think one can argue these things a variety of ways. For purposes of a relatively brief answer to the question, I'll say this." But I think if I were going to give a more complete answer, I would go into a lot more issues about this.

So I disagree that that's what I said -- or that's what I intended to say.

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.



It sure is tough sneaking Jebus in.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:02   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:55)
Richard,

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, here.

Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:16   

"Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial. "

Cute comment... a real classic for this particular forum.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:20   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:16)
"Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial. "

Cute comment... a real classic for this particular forum.

Exceeded only by the cuteness of the commenter. Shall I assume that you indeed have no science to present here, and are simply on a cultural crusade?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10062
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:25   

It's one of Bill O'Reilly's Culture warriors!

Quick, secular progressives, hide! (no bloviating or being a popinjay)

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,16:54   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers,

snip...

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

FtK

I won't call it BS yet, but I have to admit that I am skeptical about the claim that you have read peer-reviewed papers. That skepticism is based on two independent lines of evidence.

1) In my all-too-brief time commenting on your blog, I quickly discovered that your attendance at lectures, reading of books, and forays into blogs had not resulted in any obvious understanding of evolution, much less science in general. You showed, and I commented about it here

http://www2.blogger.com/comment....1678622

that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. So what, exactly, did you get from any peer-reviewed article you read?

2) It is my experience that science majors have lots of trouble with peer-reviewed primary literature. It is my experience that graduate students in biology have lots of difficulties in navigating a primary literature paper. It is my experience that reading the peer-reviewed literature is a skill that can be learned, but it takes time, and it takes effort. Where and when did you put in that sort of time and effort?

So yeah, I'd be real interested in hearing about any peer-reviewed articles in biology that you might have encountered, and extremely interested to hear about what you learned from those.

Take your time, I know you have lots of other questions to answer. But also remember that I am not the only one asking this question; argystokes would also like to know about this as well!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,17:19   

FtK:
Quote
Obviously, I can come here and read all of your comments about me as you join in with others who are prone to inappropriate ridicule.


Not all ridicule is inappropriate.

You have been asked several times to provide some scientific content for ID.  You have been asked whether you actually have any science training or whether you have invested the necessary time and preparation to be able to intelligently digest the primary biology literature.

You have ignored all these relevant and non-ridiculous questions in your own attempt to sling criticism with Teh Big Boyz.

Hint: don't give up your day-job, which obviously is neither comedy nor science.

Rephrased: you have long shown yourself to be an entirely appropriate object of ridicule.  If you would like to shed that particular skin, do the requisite work and demonstrate that you have earned the respect--rather than the ridicule--of those that actually have done the work.

Or keep on as you have started out.

As much as we would enjoy it, on one level, if you wised up, we'll still enjoy it, on an entirely different level, should you choose not too.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:03   

Dave wrote:
"that you actually don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis. "

Yes Dave, you caught me in an error.  Obviously, I should not have used the word hypothesis in that particular example, though it would be useless to try to convince you that I do know what the word means.  It's one of the first things you learn in high school biology class, so I'd guess that most people are able to use that particular word appropriately.    

You and I both know that I wrote three lengthy posts that evening in response to some of your comments.  You also know (because I mentioned it) that I fell asleep with my laptop still in my lap that night because I was up too late putting together responses to your posts like I promised I would.  Some of you seem to have an excessive amount of time to spend in these Internet blogs and forums whereas I have a life outside of cyberspace and have to squeeze in time when I can.  I was tired and made an error - simple as that.

I also remember that you used the word "prove" when talking about scientific evidence one time, and you know that the word "prove" in not appropriate in that type of discussion.  So, we all make mistakes occasionally.

Granted, I would hope that I don't know as much about science as you do seeing as you are a biology professor.  But, nonetheless, I think I have the right to discuss these issues and also consider the position of your opponents as well.  Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.

I'm sure it is comforting to believe that everyone who disagrees with you simply "doesn't understand how science works", but I have a hard time believing that to be true.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:18   

Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles.  Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me.  I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:20   

Quote
Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.


Then you're certainly running low on tenable excuses.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:24   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,11:58)
I decided long ago that I'm not going to deal with those who are insincere.   There is no point in it.

Then, uh, why are you here . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:26   

FtK, you don't seem interested in discussing the science, just in badmouthing us. So let's drop the complaining and talk about the science. Some questions about the science:

1 ID claims to be revolutionary science. Real scientific revolutions lead to what Kuhn called 'normal science', where the new theory is used to solve lots of unsolved problems. ID isn't solving any problems. The ID journal PCID hasn't published an issue in a year and a half. What's wrong?

2 If William Dembski's work is a revolution in Information Theory, why has he never even been mentioned in an IEEE ITSOC publication? Not even once?

3 The Discovery Institute spends ~$4 million per year. A biology lab which spent that kind of money could hire 30-40 postdocs and would generate over 50 scientific publications per year. The discovery institute's money has generated 0 publications in the last year. Does that seem funny to you? (edit: 0 *scientific* publications. They write a lot of articles in National Review and the Weekly Standard etc, but those aren't scientific publications)

4 No matter how disturbing or unwanted, scientific revolutions only make headway when the revolutionaries convince their colleagues of its merits. The big bang, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics theory, none of these theories advanced by the lobbying of school boards. Rather, the researchers showed that the new hypothesis got results, and after a period of resistance, their colleagues relented. How are IDers hoping to achieve that without any new results in biology?

5 ID supporter and super-religious guy David Heddle used to be a nuclear physicist at Cornell. After much exposure to Dembski's works, he eventually concluded last year that
a) some ID efforts made christians look like fools
b) ID things like Irreducible Complexity aren't real science and don't lead to real experiments
c) Dembski's math is bogus
d) ID really is religious
e) the School Board efforts were a disaster
and finally "I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders."

(http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/09/color-me-id-cynical.html)

Feel free to explain why Mr. Heddle is wrong on any of those points. Especially c.

(and if Dave Heddle wants to complain that I misrepresented anything he said, he's welcome to do so. It isn't my intention to quote mine. The 'S' in my name is followed by 'teve', not 'alvador'. )

6 The guy who proved the No Free Lunch theorems says Dembski's math doesn't prove anything. Is he wrong about his own theorem?

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:28   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 02 2007,13:30)
Lenny Flank was also banned from PZMyers site

Actually I don't know if I was banned (although I do recall PZ mentioning something about it).  Since I've never tried to POST at PZ's blog, I simply don't know if I can or not.


As for FTK's whining, I grew tired, decades ago, of listening to the fundies and their interminable martyr complexes.  Cry me a river, FTK.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:29   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:18)
Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles.  Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me.  I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles.

A nearly-nonmoderated forum with a mix of scientists and laypeople is certainly a bad place for discussing the peer-reviewed literature. Better to do it behind the curtains of comment-screened blogs. So the truth gets out, ya know.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:31   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate?

I would think that the word "science" would be at the top of the list --- it's entirely irrelevant to this "debate", since the IDers consistently and adamantly refuse to, ya know, *present* any.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:34   

Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,14:33)
(I know that rule has been absent lately on that thread where GoP, Skeptic, Lenny etc intersect, but I'll deal with that shortly.)

Me?  What the #### have *I* done lately . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:36   

Stevestory wrote:

"FtK, you don't seem interested in discussing the science, just in badmouthing us."

Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear as to my reason for being here?  I'm certainly not here to "discuss science" with any of you.  

I've been reading threads here for some time now due to my sitemeter picking up on your regulars who apparently found it thrilling to post rude comments on my blog.  Before that time, I didn't even know this place existed.  Obviously, there is nothing of value coming from this site.

I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:38   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 02 2007,20:34)
 
Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,14:33)
(I know that rule has been absent lately on that thread where GoP, Skeptic, Lenny etc intersect, but I'll deal with that shortly.)

Me?  What the #### have *I* done lately . . . . . ?

Actually, I haven't seen anything of yours lately that was a problem. I should have said "GoP, Skeptic, Louis". They're the three who are annoying me at the moment. Mibad.

FtK--so you don't want to discuss science, just insult us, and your insult is that we don't want to discuss science, just insult you. Wow.

If you ever want to discuss the science, you know where to find us.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:39   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,15:55)
Richard,

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, here.

From the trial transcript:

Quote

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A I'm sorry?

Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A It seems like that.

Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

A Yes.

Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Q Page 132, line 23.

A Yes.

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.

A I'm sorry?

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.


--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:42   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:36)
Oh, I'm sorry, was I unclear as to my reason for being here?  I'm certainly not here to "discuss science" with any of you.  

And who can blame you.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,18:46   

Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:36)
I have no intention of discussing anything of a serious nature here as it is quite clear that none of you are interested in the facts.  You're clearly into attack, ridicule and spin.

(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo !!!!!!!!!!

Well, my dear, go ahead and stamp your feet and shout "YOU'RE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF BIG MEANIES !!!!" at us, get it all out of your system, and then go away.

Thanks.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  10200 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]