Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Paley Goes to the Movies

Pages: (18) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,21:44    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 10 2006,16:41) Arden - yes, I'm working. I plan to explain in more detail why the existence of redshift, in and of itself, doesn't harm my model. I will then destroy another one of Eric's evidences. Destroy "another one" of my evidences? I don't recall your ever destroying one previously. You're sounding more and more like AF Dave of late, Bill. And besides, evidence of what? For one thing, I haven't presented any "evidence" for you to "destroy." I've presented observations, which your model is required to account for if it's to have any credibility at all (regardless of whatever mathematical elegance it may possess). For another, I'm not the one proposing a model here, Bill. Again, you seem to have things backwards, in typical IDist/creationist fashion. You're supposed to be providing evidence for your own model (well, at least, once you've actually supplied a model). Your job isn't to "destroy" my evidence; I haven't proposed a model for which it's my job to even provide evidence. Dembski et. al. have managed to persuade a lot of scientifically-unsophisticated listeners that ID has scientific value by not-so-subtly shifting the burden of proof onto the Theory of Evolution, and merely claiming that their hypothesis of an intelligent designer is somehow a "better explanation" for observation, without ever describing what that "explanation" actually is. That's not going to work here, Bill. If you claim your model provides a "better explanation" for observation, you're going to have to detail exactly what that "explanation" is. It won't do to just be able to account for some observations here and there, and come up with some ad hoc explanations without an overarching, all-inclusive theory. If you want your geocentrist model to get anywhere, you're going to have to show us how it's a better, more inclusive explanation for observation than the last 500 years of theoretical astrophysics and cosmology. That's the task you've set for yourself, so it really is the case that you don't have the time to go to the movies. But again—stop trying to "disprove" current theory. Start proving your own theory. When are you guys ever going to get clear on this concept? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,21:49    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 12 2006,19:58) By the way, Mr. Murphy, I recently scraped up some cash to purchase a season's worth of Columbo episodes. Hmm…Columbo…I was never much for the TV whodunits. Not much for TV at all, actually. Buffy's more my style. Which, of course, is exactly why God invented the DVD. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,05:31    Quote But again—stop trying to "disprove" current theory. Start proving your own theory. When are you guys ever going to get clear on this concept? But the quantised red shift and the near-uniformity of the CMB radiation do provide positive evidence for my model.   Quote Hmm…Columbo…I was never much for the TV whodunits. Not much for TV at all, actually. Buffy's more my style. Which, of course, is exactly why God invented the DVD. Well, I thought the "just one more thing" on the other thread referred to Columbo. Oh well. As for Buffy, never got into that show. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,06:17    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,10:31)   Quote But again—stop trying to "disprove" current theory. Start proving your own theory. When are you guys ever going to get clear on this concept? But the quantised red shift and the near-uniformity of the CMB radiation do provide positive evidence for my model. Well, I guess we'll have to wait until you unveil your model (sometime this year?) before we know how well they support it, but I should say for now that redshift quantization per se is not problematic for cosmic inflation, and obviously the CMB at exactly the observed anisotropy is extremely powerful evidence supporting inflation, so unless you can show how both support your model even better, we're not going to be very impressed. By the way, I know I'm getting ahead of you, but how exactly does your model even account for the existence of the CMB? Isn't your toy universe static?       Quote   Quote Hmm…Columbo…I was never much for the TV whodunits. Not much for TV at all, actually. Buffy's more my style. Which, of course, is exactly why God invented the DVD. Well, I thought the "just one more thing" on the other thread referred to Columbo. Oh well. As for Buffy, never got into that show. No, the "one more thing" is from Mr. Jobs, of Apple Computer. I wouldn't have thought Columbo would be considered to be a "greedy capitalist." -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,07:50    Quote By the way, I know I'm getting ahead of you, but how exactly does your model even account for the existence of the CMB? Isn't your toy universe static? Well, it accounts for it, but I'm trying to think about how to present it without bringing up too much math. Let me work on my orbits and crystal spheres and stuff for now, and then I'll whip up on inflation. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,09:15    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 13 2006,12:50)   Quote By the way, I know I'm getting ahead of you, but how exactly does your model even account for the existence of the CMB? Isn't your toy universe static? Well, it accounts for it, but I'm trying to think about how to present it without bringing up too much math. Let me work on my orbits and crystal spheres and stuff for now, and then I'll whip up on inflation. Well, in the standard model, it's not too difficult to present. It's the "surface of last scattering," i.e., the radiation released when the universe cooled enough for electrons to become bound in stable orbits around nuclei, allowing the mean free path of photons to be more than a couple of microns. Not too hard to explain, and makes for a nice visual image, easily apprehended. Now, how hard is it going to be to explain in your model? If we're going to replace the new with the old, we want something in exchange, like an easier picture, perhaps? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,10:11    Very interesting interview with Gary Kurtz. I found this passage very revealing:       Quote IGNFF: Well what were the original outlines for the prequels? Since they can be compared and contrasted now that the first one's out there, and the second one's soon to be out there. Were there major differences from what you saw, from the original outlines of prequel ideas? KURTZ: Well a lot of the prequel ideas were very, very vague. It's really difficult to say. I can't remember much about that at all, except dealing with the Clone Wars and the formation of the Jedi Knights in the first place – that was supposed to be one of the keys of Episode I, was going to be how the Jedi Knights came to be. But all of those notes were abandoned completely. One of the reasons Jedi came out the way it did was because the story outline of how Jedi was going to be seemed to get tossed out, and one of the reasons I was really unhappy was the fact that all of the carefully constructed story structure of characters and things that we did in Empire was going to carry over into Jedi. The resolution of that film was going to be quite bittersweet, with Han Solo being killed, and the princess having to take over as queen of what remained of her people, leaving everybody else. In effect, Luke was left on his own. None of that happened, of course. IGNFF: So it would have been less of a fairy-tale ending? KURTZ: Much, much less. It would have been quite sad, and poignant and upbeat at the same time, because they would have won a battle. But the idea of another attack on another Death Star wasn't there at all ... it was a rehash of Star Wars, with better visual effects. And there were no Ewoks ... it was just entirely different. It was much more adult and straightforward, the story. This idea that the roller-coaster ride was all the audience was interested in, and the story doesn't have to be very adult or interesting, seemed to come up because of what happened with Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Indiana Jones films – and the fact that that seemed to make a lot of money and it didn't matter whether there was a really good story or not – that wasn't what this kind of film was about. We had serious differences about a lot of that. IGNFF: Well it's ironic to me ... I was talking to somebody who has a lot of good friends at ILM, especially in the conceptual department, and he said that George has basically a new catch phrase in the development process. His new catch phrase is "It's good enough," and they say he uses it all the time now. When you're talking about that idea of only going to a certain depth because the audience only wants the quick and easy impact, and then move along.... That somehow the audience isn't observant, so why should we be overly detailed... it's just fascinating to compare that with the observations you made. KURTZ: Well, there is a balance that has to be struck there, because if you want to go to the other extreme, as we were talking about with Stanley Kubrick who was very, very aware and almost paranoid of every detail of his films, it didn't always make any difference in the sense that – as I said – his later films weren't very good, I didn't think. You can go overboard on that and spend too much energy. I think you have to make the film for yourself as the primary audience, and also look at it with a fairly discerning eye – "This works for me, this is good, I like this." [my emp] Kurtz tries to downplay the implications of this testimony later in the interview, but most sci-fi fans would be disturbed by this "confession" nonetheless. I find this intriguing because it dovetails with the Law of Unintended Consequences: something on its own may be neutral or even good (Raiders of the Lost Ark) and yet lead to disastrous consequences (the dumbing down of American cinema). One also sees this in films like Halloween, a well-crafted and creepy story whose influence gutted the entire horror industry, encouraging filmmakers to replace atmosphere and psychological tension with formulaic bloodbaths.     How does this illuminate the creo/evo controversy? Well, suppose Darwinists are correct that evolutionary biology, in and of itself, is entirely harmless. This does not refute the creationist contention that Darwinism aids societal collapse. If Star Wars, Halloween, and Raiders can corrupt the American film industry, then why can't the same effect occur on a larger scale? Something to ponder at any rate..... -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,11:15    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 03 2006,15:11) How does this illuminate the creo/evo controversy? Well, suppose Darwinists are correct that evolutionary biology, in and of itself, is entirely harmless. This does not refute the creationist contention that Darwinism aids societal collapse. So which societies have collapsed as a result of evolutionary theory, Bill? Or are even in any danger of collapse as a result of evolutionary theory? Because I'm not aware of any society that's collapsed in the last 150 years as the result of any theory. I think your theory kind of collapses if you can't show any societal collapses, don't you? Not that Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Halloween have anything whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory... -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,11:24    Quote I think your theory kind of collapses if you can't show any societal collapses, don't you? Anticipating Paley's response : the 3rd Reich? Anyway, why do you ask? Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke.

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,11:31    Somehow - somehow, I got dragged to Superman the other day. It was gay. And not in a pleasant homosexual way. It was terrible boring agony. I blame Christianity for that horrible movie. It made Christianity look pretty bad, Paley!

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,11:43    What the he11 has StarWars got to do with Darwinism?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,12:03    Quote (jeannot @ July 03 2006,16:24)   Quote I think your theory kind of collapses if you can't show any societal collapses, don't you? Anticipating Paley's response : the 3rd Reich? Anyway, why do you ask? Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke. The Third Reich didn't collapse; it was defeated by force of arms. Totally different thing. I know this thread's a joke. I can't even imagine how a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark could be considered "influenced by evolution." On the other hand, it's no more of a joke than Young-Earth Creationism or Geocentrism. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,12:13    <sigh> C'mon guys, you're smarter than this.....look, technology, art, clothes, pop culture.....we agree that these things can influence society, correct? Furthermore, their influence isn't always predictable, correct? So here's an idea....suppose cultural artifacts occasionally hurt society in strange, unpredictable ways, even if they themselves are harmless? Can this happen? I'm arguing it can, while using the interview as supporting evidence. I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on cinema. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,12:30    And you think Darwinism hurts science because ...

Occam's Toothbrush Posts: 555 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,12:32    Quote Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke Yep, but for all the time and energy misguidedly invested in arguing with his bloviations, one could forgive a casual observer for thinking he was just as much a legitimate scientist and thinker as anyone else on this board. What's the satisfaction in having your chain yanked by someone who lives for only that? -------------- "Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers ------ "You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,13:27    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 03 2006,17:13) I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on movies. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety. First; I disagree with your premise. What effect did Star Wars have on films like "Memento," "Requiem for a Dream," "Dirty Pretty Things," or any of hundreds of films released subsequently that can stand with any cinema made previously. Granted, the intrinsic value of any film is largely a matter of opinion, but if you don't think a lot of throw-away trash was made before Star Wars came out, you obviously haven't spent too much time watching movies. Second—Bill, it's pretty obvious to me that creationism has a much more destructive effect on society than any legitimate scientific theory, because it undermines people's ability to make informed decisions about what is and is not plausible. Young-Earth Creationism is especially destructive, because it requires that people give up the ability to reason dispassionately and weigh evidence, and instead lets them think that it's okay to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of what the evidence might have to say about it. You think Foucault's a jackass, and deride the whole postmodernist-deconstructionist premise that all ways of knowing are equally valid, and the multiculturalist thesis that science is just another myth, just like other myths. Creationism in general and Young-Earth varieties thereof in particular reinforce this belief that no method of knowing has primacy over any other. AF Dave thinks he's entitled to spin any old wild-ass ad hoc hypothesis, regardless of whether it's supported by facts, and feels entitled to dismiss any evidence, regardless of how solidly supported it is, if it contradicts his beloved Bible. He is evidently of the opinion that he, with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, is as or more qualified to opine on complex topics like radiometric dating, paleontology, geology, linguistics, and archaeology than people who have devoted their professional lives to it. If that isn't a postmodernist/deconstructionist position to take, I don't know what is. If any force is likely to cause society to collapse, Bill, it's the rubbish promoted by the religious right as actual "science," like "Creation Science," "Intelligent Design," etc. Conservative refusal to credit the reality of global human-mediated climate change (a notion that is entirely uncontroversial in the scientific community) has the potential not just to cause society to collapse, but the entire ecosystem to collapse. Evolution has been the considered opinion of the scientific community for the past 100 years or more, and if it's causing society to collapse, it's got to be the slowest collapse of all time. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,14:59    O.T.:               Quote               Quote Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke Yep, but for all the time and energy misguidedly invested in arguing with his bloviations, one could forgive a casual observer for thinking he was just as much a legitimate scientist and thinker as anyone else on this board. What's the satisfaction in having your chain yanked by someone who lives for only that? The funny thing is, I could be much better at this "trolling" business if that's what I was in it for. Consider the posters who generate the most heat: 1) Antievos who peddle creo boilerplate 2) Arrogant/low IQ ranters 3) Trashtalkers C'mon, you know it's true. Look at Thordaddy -- the dude's posts were little more than random permutations of a few stock phrases (And yeah, I supported him....thought he would snap out of it sooner or later). Evopeach was little more than a Seanbaby/Don Rickles disciple; his posts generated chuckles but no insight. And look at Dave -- I think he's fantastic, but let's face it, the reason he draws so much attention is not because he makes plenty of good points and discusses interesting subjects (although he does) -- it's largely because you like to ridicule his intellect and flex your argumentative muscles. I think he's a bright guy with a cool background & a lot to contribute if you'd just listen, but if you shared my opinion of his mind then you wouldn't be as interested in debating him, now would ya? His "vulnerability" (your collective opinion, not mine) is what makes him so "appealing". But it's OK, cause Dave's a big boy and I'm glad his topics are getting so much coverage, even if it's for the wrong reasons. This brings me to the second point. Suppose my goal was to yank chains & turn yer butts pink, how would I do it? Let's see, I could adopt any of these positions: 1) Bush is the greatest President of all time, long may he wave, 2) We should kill gays 3) The holocaust was a myth, & I can prove the Jews made it up so they could get their own country 4) Global warming is nothing more than pinko propaganda, and lest we forget..... 5) Whites are the smartest, greatest race of all time, and should rule the world. I know that the Yenta and others think I have argued 5, but that's just because their liberal mindset drove em insane. When I was a liberal, I read a ton of stuff on racism & hate groups & IQ, and I'll bet I could rattle your cage a lot more if I really wanted to. But I don't, because I'm not trying to troll, but rather speak my mind and defend my position on a lot of issues. If I'm wrong....well, I haven't lost anything, because I lead a relatively happy life. And if I'm right, then I'm going to Heaven (assuming I ever get my behaviour in line with my beliefs, that is.....). Anyhoo -- as I've said before, it's a win-win situation. Eric:       Quote First; I disagree with your premise. What effect did Star Wars have on films like "Memento," "Requiem for a Dream," "Dirty Pretty Things," or any of hundreds of films released subsequently that can stand with any cinema made previously. Granted, the intrinsic value of any film is largely a matter of opinion, but if you don't think a lot of throw-away trash was made before Star Wars came out, you obviously haven't spent too much time watching movies. Excellent point. Of course, I'm not arguing that good films are extinct, but rather: 1) The "average" Hollywood product, while technically more proficient than its predecessors, lacks the depth that filmbuffs have come to expect (it doesn't have to be this way....I don't watch much TV, but what I've seen indicates that this medium has gotten more sophisticated, perhaps as a reaction to Hollywood's inanity) 2) Good, adult*-oriented films have become harder to find, and often lack the sparkling dialogue of films past. That's why I find a film like Quiz Show a small miracle.....the dialogue is amazing. Obviously Hollywood doesn't buy the Flynn Effect. 3) Films were rarely a compendium of stunts, explosions, and car chases before The French Connection, Star Wars, and Raiders. Don't believe me? Read Pauline Kael around the late 70's early 80's. Was she hallucinating?     Quote Second—Bill, it's pretty obvious to me that creationism has a much more destructive effect on society than any legitimate scientific theory, because it undermines people's ability to make informed decisions about what is and is not plausible. Young-Earth Creationism is especially destructive, because it requires that people give up the ability to reason dispassionately and weigh evidence, and instead lets them think that it's okay to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of what the evidence might have to say about it. Obviously I contest this. But time's running out, so let me end with this question: Which country has the broadest range of free speech protection in the entire world? Now, which country has the largest group of Christian "fundies"? *you know what I mean, wiseguys -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,15:45    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 03 2006,19:59) And look at Dave -- I think he's fantastic, but let's face it, the reason he draws so much attention is not because he makes plenty of good points and discusses interesting subjects (although he does) -- it's largely because you like to ridicule his intellect and flex your argumentative muscles. I think he's a bright guy with a cool background & a lot to contribute if you'd just listen, but if you shared my opinion of his mind then you wouldn't be as interested in debating him, now would ya? His "vulnerability" (your collective opinion, not mine) is what makes him so "appealing". I've yet to see Dave make a single good point. In over a hundred pages, he's yet to give me reason to question a single tenet of evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, geology, or any other discipline upon which young-earth creationism impinges. Nor has he given me reason to doubt any particular piece of evidence supporting an ancient earth or evolution of organisms from simple precursors up to the present diversity of life. His posts are filled with the same kind of feeble-minded creationist ad hoc hypotheses and special pleading we've all seen from creationists a million times before. If anything, AF Dave is a stunning example of how a person of relatively normal intelligence can be utterly blinded by ideology. It's been clear almost from Dave's first post that he will never, ever be persuaded by evidence that his Creator God Hypothesis is worthless crap, despite his frequent protestations to the contrary. At this point, we're making fun of Dave basically because there's nothing else you can do with him. He's impervious to reason, logic, evidence, or rational thought. He believes what he believes, and he's certainly not going to let facts get in his way. I never would have believe that people like Dave could exist in the real world. If anyone who's posted on this site is indicative of the risks ideologically-blinkered thinking entails for society, it's our very own AF Dave.   Quote Obviously I contest this. But time's running out, so let me end with this question: Which country has the broadest range of free speech protection in the entire world? Now, which country has the largest group of Christian "fundies"? Are you implying a causative relation here? Because I don't see it. Our current administration is probably more top-heavy with Christian "fundies" than any other administration in history, and yet this administration is undoubtedly the most secretive, and most hostile to free-speech protections, of any administration memory. The way I see it, Christian "fundies" are perfectly willing to take advantage of constitutional protections of free speech, while at the same time being perfectly willing to deny those protections to others. As far as I can tell, the U.S. has broad constitutional protections for free speech despite religious fundamentalists, not because of them. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,19:41    Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 03 2006,17:13) <sigh> C'mon guys, you're smarter than this.....look, technology, art, clothes, pop culture.....we agree that these things can influence society, correct? Furthermore, their influence isn't always predictable, correct? So here's an idea....suppose cultural artifacts occasionally hurt society in strange, unpredictable ways, even if they themselves are harmless? Can this happen? I'm arguing it can, while using the interview as supporting evidence. I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on cinema. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety. Paley, why don't you make a movie proving the moon landings were faked? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,20:07    Quote Paley, why don't you make a movie proving the moon landings were faked? Ooooh!  Then I can make a movie proving his movie is a fake! -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

JMX Posts: 27 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2006,21:01    Star Wars and Darwinism? Au contraire, my dear Watson: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1283

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2006,01:33    Dear All, Ah this old chestnut! "Star Wars (or pick a movie) ushered in a slide into cinematic depravity, it was the pebble that started the landslide. We know this is true because many movies today are shite. Therefore by analogy: Evolutionary biology (or pick a science) ushered in a slide into social depravity, it was the pebble that started the landslide. We know this is true because many facets of society today are shite." I think I know what Ghosty's up to here, it's a game, it's "spot the ridiculous logical fallacies". So I'll give it a go. In Ghosty's "argument" (not merely my shortened version of the key bit) I can find the following fallacies: 1. affirmation of the consequent 2. amphiboly 3. appeals to anecdotal evidence 4. argumentum ad nauseum 5. argumentum ad populum 6. audiatur et altera pars 7. bifurcation 8. converse accident 9. extended analogy in absence of factual basis 10. ignoratio elenchi 11. non causa pro causa (specifically in this case a combination of both the cum hoc ergo propter hoc and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies) 12. non sequitur 13. petitio principii 14. slippery slope Wow! 14 fallacies in ONE "argument" (more accurately an attempt at an insult combined with a red herring). Can anyone spot any more fallacies in Ghosty's argument? Louis (watch Ghosty run to google to regurgitate a mass of semi-relevant spurious nonsense to "support" his claim, I predict distraction and bullshit from our ephemeral companion, anyone care to make a wager to the contrary? Anyone? [sound of crickets chirruping] Didn't think so.) -------------- Bye.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,04:25    Louis: Just two questions: 1) Are you asserting that Star Wars, Raiders, and Halloween had little impact on modern cinematic values? Because this flies in the face of just about everything I've read from movie critics and people who were, like, actually making films at the time (see the above link) 2) Do you contest the possibility of a negative consequence flowing from a relatively benign cause? This is an important question, because your answer will address what I actually wrote:   Quote So here's an idea....suppose cultural artifacts occasionally hurt society in strange, unpredictable ways, even if they themselves are harmless? Can this happen? I'm arguing it can, while using the interview as supporting evidence. I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on cinema. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety. I'm discussing what might be true about social trends in general. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,04:54    Ghosty, 1) No 2) No What I was doing was noting your commentary was a bunch of notably fallacious nonsense. Correlation =/= causation after all. What I am saying is that your very obvious argument is total crap, whether Star Wars had a massive impact on cinema, or whether benign things produce negative consequences on occasion are totally irrelevant to the fact that your "argument" is logically falacious, and even if all your assumptions were true, still would not establish that which you intend it to. Star Wars having an effect does not mean that that effect was negative (while you and I might agree that some effects were negative, I doubt we would agree that they all are etc). Basically you are using poor logic and weasel words to #### by association and insinuation and you are fooling nobody. You don't HAVE an argument, you have half assed cognitive dissonant nonsense that you use to try to shore up your beliefs and prejudices. Nothing more. Let's get to the meat, there is, as far as I am aware, simply no evidence that evolutionary biology being taught in schools has any causative link with any aspect of societal decline (I don't even accept that society is declining because it rather hinges on what one means by decline). Even if it were demonstrably the case that teaching evolutionary biology in schools was a causatively socially damaging in some manner (and again, there is no evidence it is AFAIK) that would have NOTHING to do with it's validity or accuracy as science. Also one would have to question WHY it was socially damaging, i.e. why a relatively simple and (scientifically) uncontroversial scientific theory and series of data were somehow being singled out as a cause of societal problems. We return to the oft asked question, what makes evolutionary biology so terrible as opposed to meteorology or chemistry for example (both of which I might add refute clearly a number of creationist claims). Basically, we can see through your nonsense, we're not impressed. Go troll something else, or better actually present this geocentric nonsense (oops sorry "model") you claim to have and stop pissing about with your social engineering muppetry. Louis -------------- Bye.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,05:06    Ghost: I read through this, and something puzzles me. Are you arguing here that *correct* ideas, which are powerful enough to providing guiding and organizing principles for entire fields of science, should nonetheless be withheld from the public, which should be kept in ignorance because such ideas might undermine their moral fabric? As I read it, your superficial "ignorance is bliss" argument isn't so straightforward, because in fact you've been working backward: 1) Has society been going downhill recently? Sure has. 2) Is evolutionary theory bunk? Must be, God said so. 3) Has evolutionary theory been accepted by Important People anyway, for the trivial reason that it explains so much and passes so many tests? Apparently so. 4) Aha, it follows that acceptance of an explanation for what we see around us that God (your interpretation) rejects, must be the cause of the moral degeneration you see (but others don't). What makes things even more disturbing is that this evil explanation meets so very clearly every single last rigorous requirement for being true. 5) Now all we need to do is document how actual comprehension of this explanation is causing social collapse, among those so immoral as to be well-educated. We document this by pointing to immoral movies. Where in these movies do we find any clear relationship between understanding biology and doing stuff you don't like? Simple, we *assume* it, because it must be true, because why else would these people be so immoral? Now, to you the causal chain may be irrefutable, but to those not pre-equipped with this knowledge, the relationship you allege simply isn't there. At all. Ah well, faith is believing what you know ain't so.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,06:25    Flint:       Quote I read through this, and something puzzles me. Are you arguing here that *correct* ideas, which are powerful enough to providing guiding and organizing principles for entire fields of science, should nonetheless be withheld from the public, which should be kept in ignorance because such ideas might undermine their moral fabric? No, I don't believe in censoring either ideas or art. For example, I would not censor "black" (i.e. Satan-themed) metal or Gangsta rap, even though their potential for social harm is obvious to pretty much everyone with a functioning brain. Likewise with movies: a steady diet of slasher flicks does a teenager no good (and probably harms him by desensitizing him to violence), but it's not up to the government to choose what we watch. But regardless of politics, a huge body of social science research links violent, anti-social media to crime and social decay. Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but social scientists know this and have developed methods to check for spurious correlation (think about the classic studies demonstrating a causal link between smoking and lung cancer). Plus, there are crude experiments than can monitor immediate behavior and attitudinal responses to violent media, and these drive home the connection. Anyway, legal does not equal benign.       Quote 5) Now all we need to do is document how actual comprehension of this explanation is causing social collapse, among those so immoral as to be well-educated. We document this by pointing to immoral movies. Where in these movies do we find any clear relationship between understanding biology and doing stuff you don't like? Simple, we *assume* it, because it must be true, because why else would these people be so immoral? I think everyone still neglects my main point, which is that neutral or even benign phenomena can have bad consequences. That was why I brought the movies up. Notice that Louis, although he challenges everything else I say, doesn't challenge this point. Nevertheless, I'm not claiming that I have even begun to prove a link between Darwinism and social decay. I'm just showing that this issue is more complicated than either creos or evos make it.     Quote Now, to you the causal chain may be irrefutable, but to those not pre-equipped with this knowledge, the relationship you allege simply isn't there. At all. Ah well, faith is believing what you know ain't so. I never said the connection was proven; I'm just saying that there might be a link, and demonstrating the harmlessness of Darwinism itself does not prove that Darwinism has no harmful impact on society. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests with me, and I will be the first to admit it. By the way, I suspect that Darwinism is a deadly philosophy on its own terms; that's not my point however. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,07:00    Actually, I'm convinced the decline of films and general collapse of society over the last 25 years is the fault of the Police Academy movies. And I have every bit as much evidence for this theory as GoP does for his. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,07:25    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 05 2006,12:00) Actually, I'm convinced the decline of films and general collapse of society over the last 25 years is the fault of the Police Academy movies. And I have every bit as much evidence for this theory as GoP does for his. Actually, it happened when they allowed Rhett Butler to say the word, "D4mn," as in, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a d4mn."  It was all downhill from there.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,07:39    Another hole in your theory, Bill, is that a distinct minority of Americans believe in evolution. Supposedly something like 8% of Americans believe that evolution proceeded without assistance from god, and at least a third of Americans are YECs like Dave, if they ever think about it at all. Given how few Americans even believe in evolution, Bill, I think a much stronger argument can be made that society is the way it is because people don't believe in evolution, not because they do. And again, if evolution is true, does it matter whether it's harmful to society? Should we tell people comforting lies if it makes for a better society? I think that's the real moral issue here. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,07:43    Louis:       Quote Star Wars having an effect does not mean that that effect was negative (while you and I might agree that some effects were negative, I doubt we would agree that they all are etc). Basically you are using poor logic and weasel words to #### by association and insinuation and you are fooling nobody. You don't HAVE an argument, you have half assed cognitive dissonant nonsense that you use to try to shore up your beliefs and prejudices. Nothing more. No, Stars Wars could have had a positive effect. For example, it showed that a movie could make a substantial amount of money from repeat business; this might encourage scriptwriters to add depth to their stories. Unfortunately, however, studio moguls focused on the movie's: 1) Teen appeal 2) Special effects 3) Merchandising (toy sales, etc) How do we know this? Well, for one thing many of them confessed their strategy in interviews. In addition, they began to aggressively pursue market research so that they might better appeal to their new target audience: bored teenagers. Why is this significant? Because teenagers have relatively undeveloped tastes, and dislike complexity and high culture references. Once again, I recommend Pauline Kael's essays. More later. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Pages: (18) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard