Sanctum
Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Arden,
| Quote | You were being quite unclear. I don't think an actual scientist would be swayed by DaveS browbeating him either.
And all I can conclude is that you're unable argue with any of my points (e.g., it being quite unlikely that an ID apologist would be an actual scientist), but you simply didn't like that anyone should say them. Hence the obfuscation and obsession with semantic points. |
| Quote | stevestory
Update: I forgot to add, mattison0922 is an Intelligent Design Supporter.
Caledonian
Probably not any more...
Hee.
Sanctum
"Probably not anymore..."
I doubt honest scientists alter their conclusions whenever they meet with somebody they find disagreeable.
Arden Chatfield
And your evidence that mattison0922 is a scientist is... what , exactly?
Sanctum
Ooh! The great internet challenge ... "Your evidence is what?"
I can only go by the evidence available -what he said - just as stevestory did.
Are you going to ask stevestory for evidence that mattison is an ID supporter? |
This could only be unclear to somebody whose bias prohibits him from seeing clearly.
You also claim I have obfuscated the issue, yet it was you saying that I was defending ID when I made no defense, you pretended my concern was that mattison was called an ID supporter when I said no such thing, you pretended I “knew (your) statement was correct” when you made no statement, you pretended that my defense of science had anything to do with ID, etc.
But where are the examples of my obfuscation and semantic obsession?
Do you mean that I said only what I intended to and not what your biases made you presume?
| Quote | Arden Chatfield
It's not 'an internet challenge'. One also finds it in academia. If someone makes an unsupported assertion, one can expect to be asked how they know this. It's not complicated.
I assume SteveStory is basically making his assumption on previous posts that mattison has made. If mattison has made a lot of posts, discerning that he's an ID supporter should not be a tricky thing. It's not usually a hard thing to figure out.
And if mattison is an ID supporter, I have my doubts that he's a scientist in any meaningful sense. He conceivably could be a scientist who's lost his mind, like Davison, but the odds are much better that he's something like an engineer or a computer programmer. |
Here you assume Stevestory made assumptions. But because you expect to agree with him you accept those assumptions while my statement gets an obnoxious demand -not a request - for evidence.
By the way - speaking of semantics - if I made an assertion it was regarding the honesty of scientists. It happened to incorporate my assumption, but not assertion, that mattison is a scientist (as he stated).
Now you challenge that I counter your argument that no scientist believes in ID - that if an ID supporter knows some jargon they are engineers, mathematicians or lawyers, but certainly not biologists - that an ID proponent could be a real scientist but one who has lost his mind.
If you think these are sustainable arguments, or that they are worthy of counter then I concede to you already. There is no point discussing that issue.
Likewise if all you mean is that the vast majority of scientists, and biologists in particular, reject ID that is conceded as well. No, the fact that the preponderance of scientific opinion is against ID does not offend me either.
|
3 am 
