RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (22) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: The Skeptical Zone, with Lizzie< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10296
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2012,08:41   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 22 2012,22:28)
Breaking news:
Quote
GilDodgen on February 23, 2012 at 3:29 am said:

Dear Liz,

From my point of view, the notion that complex, functionally-integrated information-processing systems and the associated machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms, were engineered by the introduction of random errors, with the bad errors being thrown out and the good errors being preserved, strikes me as being irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment.

On the other hand, you and most of the contributors to your blog consider my inference to design to be irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment (although my original philosophical precommitment was yours and that of most of your contributors).

I thus return to the theme my original post, which is that there is an unbridgeable gap.

Thanks for the opportunity to post here. It was fun while it lasted.

I'll check in from time to time.

That's a shame, Gil. You had a chance to engage, rather than preach to flock. I think Gil's a good guy deep-down, despite his peccadilloes.

--------------
"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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2291
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2012,11:19   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2012,06:41)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 22 2012,22:28)
Breaking news:
 
Quote
GilDodgen on February 23, 2012 at 3:29 am said:

Dear Liz,

From my point of view, the notion that complex, functionally-integrated information-processing systems and the associated machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms, were engineered by the introduction of random errors, with the bad errors being thrown out and the good errors being preserved, strikes me as being irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment.

On the other hand, you and most of the contributors to your blog consider my inference to design to be irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment (although my original philosophical precommitment was yours and that of most of your contributors).

I thus return to the theme my original post, which is that there is an unbridgeable gap.

Thanks for the opportunity to post here. It was fun while it lasted.

I'll check in from time to time.

That's a shame, Gil. You had a chance to engage, rather than preach to flock. I think Gil's a good guy deep-down, despite his peccadilloes.

It's hardly surprising.  He's been playing one song for years: "Personal incredulity, and you should believe me because I'm smart".  

It's not much of a song, but that frilly shirt looks fabulous.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2012,12:27   

Site now has mini-forum attached.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2012,20:58   

From the too-good-to-be-true department, dvunkannon discovers that LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package:
Quote
Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?

http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymo....ual.pdf

I hope Gil's manager makes him use it.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
REC



Posts: 574
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2012,21:04   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,20:58)
From the too-good-to-be-true department, dvunkannon discovers that LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package:
Quote
Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?

http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymo....ual.pdf

I hope Gil's manager makes him use it.

Damn you.... I just shot some nice local small-batch rye out my nose on that one...

Mmmm

On the plus side, the burn is somewhat pleasant...

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2012,21:14   

snort it back in!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
sparc



Posts: 1722
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,01:36   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,20:58)
From the too-good-to-be-true department, dvunkannon discovers that LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package:
Quote
Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?

http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymo....ual.pdf

I hope Gil's manager makes him use it.

POTW. You reall ymade my day.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1109
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,04:32   

I just made the mistake of looking at some of the comments at TSZ in the Good arguments and straw men thread. As usual the bible thumping IDiots are calling people names (like "troll") and making insulting remarks about reading comprehension and other things to or about non-IDiots.

I stopped reading when I saw EL's response to this mess by WJM (my responses are in bold type):

William J. Murray on February 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm said:

This is probably essentially off-topic, but anyway:

But that won't stop you from proselytizing and being a pompous jerk, right?

For myself, and probably most people posting or reading ID/NDE (neo-darwinian evolution) debates, we lack the scientific or mathematical education/background/training to make any formal scientific arguments about ID or NDE. The best we might be able to do is recognize logical challenges/solutions/problems involved in more specifically educated arguments about ID vs NDE.

Speak for yourself and your IDiotic comrades, not "most people posting or reading ID/NDE (neo-darwinian evolution) debates".

This is why I try to keep my contributions about the logic and philosophy involved, and not interpretations of technical data. I'm not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits. I suspect most those contributing here are equally unqualified.

Suspect yourself and your IDiotic comrades. Just because you and your fellow IDiots are "not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits" doesn't mean that non-IDiots are "equally unqualified". That's one of the biggest problems with you morons. †Because you're delusional, stupid, and uneducated, you think that anyone who questions or opposes you must be just as delusional, stupid, and uneducated, or more so. From your position of delusion, ignorance, and lack of education, you can't see that many people are way smarter and more educated than you, and are not delusional to boot.

Which brings me to my point: those whom I suspect are equally unqualified to parse the merits of the data often make assertions about the explanatory power of NDE theory that is well beyond their capacity to know. It's often (logically speaking) beyond the capacity of even experts in specific fields to know. Comments such as (from this thread):

There you go again suspecting something unfounded and wrong about people who are actually your intellectual superiors by miles. And, now that you made a bunch of asinine, insulting remarks in a lame attempt to discredit and diminish the intellect and knowledge of non-IDiots, you're going to get to your "point"?

† †I note that organisms are not optimal in their function/form ~ it is easy to make a wish list of improvements. This is to be expected in 'evolution world', but not in 'ID world'

One only knows what "optimal form" is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design.

Actually, one only knows what ANY function/form is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design. In other words, without knowing (and showing) the intent, parameters, and specifications to be met by the alleged design, you IDiots don't know squat and are just dishonestly proselytizing for your non-scientific, non-evidential, wacky religious beliefs.

For everyone else, there is a single, consistent, fully explanatory theory supported by all known observations without exception.

I doubt even the most long-tenured, multi-discipline, research-practicing evolutionary biologist could meaningfully claim this. This is obviously a statement of faith, not first-hand investigatory knowledge about "all known observations without exception".

What you doubt is irrelevant and meaningless to science and rational debate, and your absolutely moronic and desperate assertion about "first-hand investigatory knowledge" is so arrogant and stupid as to be good for nothing but laughs and mockery. No evolutionary biologist claims to have first-hand investigatory knowledge of all known observations without exception and Flint didn't claim that. Tell me, do you have "first-hand investigatory knowledge" of the alleged creation of the universe by your chosen god, or the alleged garden of eden, or the alleged talking snake, or the alleged 'flood', or the alleged ark, or the alleged conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection of a guy now called jesus, or anything else in your fairy tale religious dogma? †

There is no reason to suppose any teleological or supernatural forces are involved.

This in the face of hundreds of years of biology that has worked against the commonly held supposition of teleological forces involved, and is easily disputed by referring to Lewontin or many others who have written about the apparent design in nature. This is just rhetoric in the face of the history of evolutionary theory and thought.

Blah blah blah. Nothing but arrogant, twisted bullshit.

If one reads through much of the ID/NDE commentary on this site (or even on UD), from both sides there is much presentation of characterizations of ID, or of ID researchers, or of NDE, or NDE researchers, or of the state of research, or of what is known, or what has been proven or not proven, or what there is evidence of or not of, by those who really don't have much of an idea of what they are talking about when it comes to actually evaluating data on the merits oneself and not just taking someone else's word for what it means.

Look at a mirror if you want to see someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. And whose word are YOU taking for all the bullshit religious stories you believe?

Basically, the debate is 90% negative or positive characterizations & rhetoric, and maybe 10% qualified interpretation and criticism of data & the merits of an argument. So, I'd say that really, about 90% of us are, in terms of the scientific and mathematical evidence and argument, doing nothing more in that specific area of argument than cheerleading those who actually understand the science and/or the math.

There you go yet again making a lame attempt to denigrate and diminish scientists and science supporters who are vastly superior to you and the other IDiots in understanding scientific and mathematical evidence and arguments. Yeah, you don't understand squat, and you're an arrogant religious retard, and your ridiculous and insulting assertions about non-IDiots are nothing more than your lame attempt to fool yourself and others into believing that your opponents are as stupid as you are.

So the question I finally draw to is: Why have we chosen ID, or NDE, when we lack the necessary qualifications to do anything more, really, than appeal to authority when it comes to the actual science involved?

Who's "we"? Speak only for yourself and your brain-dead fellow religious zombie IDiots.

Since I obviously do not understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, I must rest my choice on other considerations, which I think is what is behind how most people make the choice between ID and NDE (or between NDE and creationism); other considerations.

Yeah, since you don't understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, you must rest your choice on the easy and delusional fairy tales of your chosen religion. Congratulations, you're an ignorant nutcase.

So, I think the best populist argument for ID, for the 90%, has nothing really to do with math or science (or even logic) that is over our head anyway, but rather the hope, meaning, purpose and value that is conferred upon life & existence under the ID paradigm that is not available under the NDE paradigm.

In other words you're a scientifically and mathematically illiterate godbot who prefers fairy tales to reality, you support and promote a dishonest Dominionist agenda, and you think that makes it okay for you to rank down science, scientists, and science supporters.

I think that it is also true that for 90% of NDE believers, that it is some populist or psychological reason that they have adopted NDE (as was historically said, Darwinism allowed one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist), and attempt to characterize their belief as scientific or logical when it really is not.

How do you know that "it really is not" when you admittedly don't understand science and math? You're speaking from 100% delusion, ignorance, and arrogance.

At the end of the day, most of what either side tries to do (outside of the players educated in the particular fields) is characterize their ID or NDE belief as being based on science or logic; but when it comes down to it, that belief is really - IMO - nothing more than a reflection of what they want or need to believe anyway.

Again, speak for yourself. And what makes you think that "players educated in the particular fields" aren't involved in debates with you uneducated IDiots?

Personally, I choose to believe in god. I prefer believing in god (and yes, I've tried atheism). And unless there is some kind of logical contradiction or fact of my existence that contradicts ID, I will believe that our universe and life was designed by an intelligence. I prefer living under that paradigm.

Oh, so you've "tried atheism"? If only you knew how asinine that sounds. Live under any delusion you like but keep your insanity out of science, schools, politics, and the lives of people who don't want and don't need your religious crutch.

That doesn't mean I cannot make logical arguments for ID, or for god; nor does it mean I can't read papers and make sense out of some of the science and math; it just means that I admit my fundamental reason for belief is something other than that which I'm really not qualified to evaluate.

Actually, you god zombies are incapable of making a logical argument for ID and anything else. And yes, you're unqualified to evaluate science, math, logic, and reality, so stop telling people who are qualified to evaluate those things that they are wrong. †

And I think that this is probably true for most people involved in the debate.

What you think is gibberish.

†(Reply)
Elizabeth on February 23, 2012 at 8:50 pm said:

That's interesting, William, thanks.

Actually, it's crap.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,04:45   

That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point.  Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism.  That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID.  Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,06:22   

Gil is such a drama queen.
Quote
Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.

The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
k.e..



Posts: 2992
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,08:07   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2012,14:22)
Gil is such a drama queen.
 
Quote
Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.

The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.

not only does he have a small consequence his return is more probable than teh messiah.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
JohnW



Posts: 2291
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,11:51   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2012,04:22)
Gil is such a drama queen.
 
Quote
Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.

The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.

He uses longer words, but this is exactly like one of FTK's flounce-in / flounce-out cycles at ATBC:

Godbot: Assertion!
Critics: Evidence?
Godbot: Waah!  You are teh big meanies!

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Woodbine



Posts: 795
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,13:13   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2012,12:22)
Gil is such a drama queen.
† †
Quote
Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.

The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.

Oh, play fair, Darwinist. He probably had a bad day and needed to flounce. It's not like he's done it befo....

Oh....



Damn, such a loss to everyone to see him retreat into the sunset like that.

Oh, wait a sec....what's that, Gil? You want to talk some more about yourself, do you?



What a narcissistic TARD you are, Gil.

:D

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,14:09   

the butthurt oozes from that one

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2151
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,15:16   

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 24 2012,11:13)
What a narcissistic TARD you are, Gil.

:D

You have to admit though, he wears the perfect flouncing shirt.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3587
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,15:32   

I'm registered and still can't edit. I get an edit button, but it just grays the whole page.

--------------
Ēletís not make a joke of ourselves.Ē

Pat Robertson

  
Quack



Posts: 1784
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,15:43   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,20:58)
From the too-good-to-be-true department, dvunkannon discovers that LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package:
Quote
Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?

http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymo....ual.pdf

I hope Gil's manager makes him use it.

Looks kinda interesting...

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,17:14   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 24 2012,15:32)
I'm registered and still can't edit. I get an edit button, but it just grays the whole page.

Ya, the edit button is not working, neither is the full screen entry function, which was working a few days ago.  Both just produce a grey screen.

  
George



Posts: 313
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,17:43   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 24 2012,15:32)
I'm registered and still can't edit. I get an edit button, but it just grays the whole page.

Try right clicking and opening in a new tab.  It (sort of) worked for me.

  
George



Posts: 313
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,17:49   

Ok, who else when they saw this oh-so-helpful diagram in Gregory's guest post



thought of the basic concepts of Small and Far Away?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2012,21:17   

i like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....cRrMA-M

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1014
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2012,00:17   

Quote (George @ Feb. 24 2012,17:49)
Ok, who else when they saw this oh-so-helpful diagram in Gregory's guest post



thought of the basic concepts of Small and Far Away?

That post confused me. Is he trying to argue that we can't study culture and archaeology and such using methodological naturalism? Or am I missing something?

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2012,01:08   

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 24 2012,11:13)
Gil is such a drama queen.
† † †
What a narcissistic TARD you are, Gil.

:D

I had forgotten that the frilly one was a "neighbor" of sorts.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
George



Posts: 313
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2012,02:47   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2012,21:17)
i like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....cRrMA-M

A classic! †I remember it well. :)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2012,03:16   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. †Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. †That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. †Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2012,05:39   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. †Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. †That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. †Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2012,06:11   

Gregory's OP "Why Methodological Naturalism is a Questionable Philosophy of Science" eventually reveals his feeble grasp of scientific terms. When Petrushka asks:
Quote
What's an extra-natural thing? Can you give an example?

Gregory states:
Quote
Technology


In the thread, it becomes clear that Gregory thinks "natural" means "without human interference".

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2012,09:02   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
 
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. †Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. †That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. †Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.

The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2012,09:06   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2012,09:02)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
†  
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. †Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. †That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. †Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.

The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.

Well, I'd say you have to have good science education that consists not merely of learning a body of knowledge but of also learning what scientific knowledge consists of.

My son is doing the IB, and one of the core IB subjects is "Theory of Knowledge". †I wish it was universally taught.

ETA: yeah, those are the Big Four.  Thanks.

Edited by Febble on Feb. 25 2012,09:07

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2012,09:46   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,09:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2012,09:02)
† †
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)
† † †
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
† † †  
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. †Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. †That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. †Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.

The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.

Well, I'd say you have to have good science education that consists not merely of learning a body of knowledge but of also learning what scientific knowledge consists of.

My son is doing the IB, and one of the core IB subjects is "Theory of Knowledge". †I wish it was universally taught.

ETA: yeah, those are the Big Four. †Thanks.

I've long been an advocate of good science education.

That's not what we're discussing here.

What's at issue here is being able to make a judgment on the argumentation proffered as "intelligent design". You are claiming that one needs a scientific background to even approach evaluating it. I'm saying that's wrong. Where IDC advocates even approach science is all in the "evolution is wrong" category of argumentation, and that offers *no* support for their alternative conjecture. (As noted in Kitzmiller v. DASD, where testable claims are made, they are testable because they are about evolution, which is testable, and not about ID, which isn't.) What they do have that even approaches making a case for their alternative is all stuff that is decades, or even centuries, out of contention for making anybody even shrug about it.

This isn't an argument about the content or nature of science. The IDC advocates want to pitch it that way, but there's no good reason I know of to accommodate them.

If you want to have a rousing discussion on the merits of some particular "evolution is wrong!" argument, I'd suggest a reminder each and every time that whatever one decides about it, the outcome in no way aids a religious antievolution viewpoint. You'll probably elicit a pretty clear statement of the invalid "two-model" or "oppositional dualism" stance from a religious antievolution advocate on that point. It's good to get them on record supporting logical fallacies.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  638 replies since Aug. 15 2011,22:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (22) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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