 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I've read them and they all say the same thing. I state that I value science for what it is but do not agree with some of the conclusions proffered by scientists and you reply with: So you distrust and hate science... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6779
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | I've read them and they all say the same thing. I state that I value science for what it is but do not agree with some of the conclusions proffered by scientists and you reply with: So you distrust and hate science... |
The problem is that you don't ever give valid justifications for why their conclusions are incorrect. They are the experts, and they have proved things to the satisfaction of all of the other experts. You are the layman, so the burden of proof is on you to justify why you think that all of the experts are wrong. You've never even come close to justifying your opinions in any scientific sense.
All of your arguments show that you don't respect the scientific process and the scientists who make claims (such as humans evolving from lower primates). This is why I assert that you distrust and disrespect science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your conclusion does not follow your premise.
It does not matter what my 'justification' is or isn't. If I argue against the evidence, that is one thing. If I argue that I do not agree with the conclusion because I don't see it as factually proved by the evidence, that is something else entirely.
That is exactly what is happening here. I do not agree with the conclusions, and I do not understand why you are unable to comprehend that simple idea, and why you insist on calling me a liar through your rejection of what I say and your insistence that my meaning is other than what is clearly and simply stated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6779
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | Your conclusion does not follow your premise.
It does not matter what my 'justification' is or isn't. If I argue against the evidence, that is one thing. If I argue that I do not agree with the conclusion because I don't see it as factually proved by the evidence, that is something else entirely.
That is exactly what is happening here. I do not agree with the conclusions, and I do not understand why you are unable to comprehend that simple idea, and why you insist on calling me a liar through your rejection of what I say and your insistence that my meaning is other than what is clearly and simply stated. |
RevJP, I get it. That's why I wrote,
| Quote: | | The problem is that you don't ever give valid justifications for why their conclusions are incorrect. |
I'm not saying that you are erroneously denying their evidence. I am saying that you are erroneously attacking the logic which is leading to their conclusions.
The expert scientists have lots of evidence which they say implies the conclusion that humans evolved from lower primates. You say that their evidence does NOT imply the conclusion. I get it.
Virtually all of the relevant expert scientists agree that the evidence does imply the conclusion, and virtually all of the people who disagree are religious. A good proportion of them are fundamentalist Christians in the United States. What does that tell you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The expert scientists have lots of evidence which they say implies the conclusion that humans evolved from lower primates. You say that their evidence does NOT imply the conclusion. I get it. |
You obviously do not get it.
You finally did get one point right:
| Quote: | | The expert scientists have lots of evidence which they say implies the conclusion that humans evolved from lower primates |
where you are wrong is in that I have never stated that their evidence does not imply the conclusion. I have stated, so many times I can't even count, that I do not agree with their conclusions of the implication. It is simply a matter of two conclusions from the same evidence. 'They' think it implies one thing, I think it implies something different.
| Quote: | | Virtually all of the relevant expert scientists agree that the evidence does imply the conclusion, and virtually all of the people who disagree are religious. A good proportion of them are fundamentalist Christians in the United States. What does that tell you? |
It tells me that none of that is relevant. When you are discussing what I assert, or think, or what-have-you, then please have the courtesy to debate me and not everyone else on the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6779
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
where you are wrong is in that I have never stated that their evidence does not imply the conclusion. I have stated, so many times I can't even count, that I do not agree with their conclusions of the implication. It is simply a matter of two conclusions from the same evidence. 'They' think it implies one thing, I think it implies something different. |
How is this any different from what I said?
| Quote: | | The expert scientists have lots of evidence which they say implies the conclusion that humans evolved from lower primates. You say that their evidence does NOT imply the conclusion. I get it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You are kidding me right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5901
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | where you are wrong is in that I have never stated that their evidence does not imply the conclusion. I have stated, so many times I can't even count, that I do not agree with their conclusions of the implication. It is simply a matter of two conclusions from the same evidence. 'They' think it implies one thing, I think it implies something different. |
| P1234567890 wrote: | | The expert scientists have lots of evidence which they say implies the conclusion that humans evolved from lower primates. You say that their evidence does NOT imply the conclusion. I get it. |
Unless you're merely arguing that while it does imply the conclusions mainstream science has come up with you believe it also implies something else, I'm not sure what you can complain about here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2461
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hell yes I'm subjective and 99.9% of all those scientists are subjective also. In fact it is their feigning objectivity that is a big part of the issue here. The only possibility for some one to honestly be "objective" is if they have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on a subject and admit it up front (hard to do in this world by the way).
One cannot spend twenty some odd years working/studying on a subject and still be objective, sorry that is impossible. In fact merely attending enough college course to qualify for an advanced degree makes one ipso facto subjective. Full of the biases of the instructors, full of simple prattle of coworkers/ colleagues, and if nothing else the experience which biases a person they are as far from objective as is possible to be.
Yes in fact thank you P123 you've help me identify the real boner issue here. The feigned objectivity of scientists. They hold this over our heads and hit us with it to enforce their points of view, as though their big 'T' truth was some holy grail they've found. Makes me want to puke sometimes.
In a class on the "History of Technology" during my university days I learned about the battle between engineering and science. How scientists held themselves out as some nobler class of people (aristocrats which allowed them somehow to be more objective) they would not sully their "noble intentions" by making money on their discoveries. It was the engineers who made all the practical things, who got down and dirty and took those noble discoveries and turned them into things regular people could use on a everyday level and because of that there was a complete separation between engineers and scientists. As though an engineer was incapable of making a scientific discovery, somehow it just wasn't science and therefore not worthy of mention.
Read Spectrum of Belief by Myles W.Jackson (the instructor in the course by the way and another of the multilingual people who have taught me over the years.)
Nowadays of course science has their "grants" doled out by the government (NSF usually) and the so called "pure" science does little to affect normal life. Just another form of welfare isn't it?
Subjective hell yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6779
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | RevJP wrote: | | where you are wrong is in that I have never stated that their evidence does not imply the conclusion. I have stated, so many times I can't even count, that I do not agree with their conclusions of the implication. It is simply a matter of two conclusions from the same evidence. 'They' think it implies one thing, I think it implies something different. |
| P1234567890 wrote: | | The expert scientists have lots of evidence which they say implies the conclusion that humans evolved from lower primates. You say that their evidence does NOT imply the conclusion. I get it. |
Unless you're merely arguing that while it does imply the conclusions mainstream science has come up with you believe it also implies something else, I'm not sure what you can complain about here. |
Yeah, seriously RevJP, are you just trying to be annoying by nit-picking semantics here?
Apparently we can't understand your objection here, so you're going to have to spell it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6779
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | Hell yes I'm subjective and 99.9% of all those scientists are subjective also. In fact it is their feigning objectivity that is a big part of the issue here. The only possibility for some one to honestly be "objective" is if they have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on a subject and admit it up front (hard to do in this world by the way).
One cannot spend twenty some odd years working/studying on a subject and still be objective, sorry that is impossible. In fact merely attending enough college course to qualify for an advanced degree makes one ipso facto subjective. Full of the biases of the instructors, full of simple prattle of coworkers/ colleagues, and if nothing else the experience which biases a person they are as far from objective as is possible to be.
Yes in fact thank you P123 you've help me identify the real boner issue here. The feigned objectivity of scientists. They hold this over our heads and hit us with it to enforce their points of view, as though their big 'T' truth was some holy grail they've found. Makes me want to puke sometimes.
In a class on the "History of Technology" during my university days I learned about the battle between engineering and science. How scientists held themselves out as some nobler class of people (aristocrats which allowed them somehow to be more objective) they would not sully their "noble intentions" by making money on their discoveries. It was the engineers who made all the practical things, who got down and dirty and took those noble discoveries and turned them into things regular people could use on a everyday level and because of that there was a complete separation between engineers and scientists. As though an engineer was incapable of making a scientific discovery, somehow it just wasn't science and therefore not worthy of mention.
Read Spectrum of Belief by Myles W.Jackson (the instructor in the course by the way and another of the multilingual people who have taught me over the years.)
|
Science IS objective, or at least it is as objective as humans are ever going to get. The entire system is designed to eliminated biases. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best we have? Yes, BY FAR!
The fact that you deny this gloriously wonderful aspect of science shows that you've got some kind of irrational bias against it. Another way of saying this is that you disrespect science.
| 45degreeN wrote: |
Nowadays of course science has their "grants" doled out by the government (NSF usually) and the so called "pure" science does little to affect normal life. Just another form of welfare isn't it?
|
Now you're just ranting. You don't think that math and logic should receive research funding??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2461
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Math and logic should not get funded, zero them out. Let them do their logic and mathematics as part of something else teaching might be the place.
Here is the biggest blind spot of all for science, that in fact they are far less than objective. Confession is good for the soul, so is humility and both are in short supply in the corridors of science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6779
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | Math and logic should not get funded, zero them out. Let them do their logic and mathematics as part of something else teaching might be the place.
|
This is a ridiculous proposition, and it shows how hostile you are towards academia. We HAVE to do research in pure mathematics, because other areas rely on the results. A good example is Physics; they find out that some advanced mathematics which nobody thought would be useful helps them out all the time. Apparently useless theorems from number theory end up being useful all the time. And I can't tell you how many times an arcane area of logic has come up useful in computer science.
If we killed the pure research like you're proposing, then it would hurt the research and progress in many (all?) other areas, so your idea is terrible.
| 45degreeN wrote: |
Here is the biggest blind spot of all for science, that in fact they are far less than objective. |
Science is totally objective. It involves humans, so of course they pollute the process. But the point is that it has mechanisms built in to deal with it. Is it perfect? No? But it's by far the most objective endeavor which humans have ever undertaken.
In any case, if you think that subjectivity is bad, then there are about twenty thousand things you should be complaining about ahead of science.... Religion being a good example. It's probably the most subjective and divisive activity which humans have ever practiced.
The ridiculous thing here is that all of your objections about science being arrogant apply MUCH more aptly to religion. We're not the ones who are convinced that we've discovered the most important thing in the Universe. We're not the ones who go to war with people who disagree with our ideas. We're not the ones who have a history of torturing and burning people with different viewpoints. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
45 makes some good points regarding subjectivity/objectivity. One of the things he pointed out clearly is:
| Quote: | | Hell yes I'm subjective and 99.9% of all those scientists are subjective also. In fact it is their feigning objectivity that is a big part of the issue here. The only possibility for some one to honestly be "objective" is if they have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on a subject and admit it up front (hard to do in this world by the way). |
A clear point that was immediately ignored, misunderstood, or avoided in this rebuttal:
| P123 wrote: | | Science IS objective, or at least it is as objective as humans are ever going to get. The entire system is designed to eliminated biases. |
I fail to understand why you insist on juxtaposing the issues regarding the people involved with the mechanism involved. It is the people that are objected to, and their tendencies and motives, and not the mechanism.
| Quote: | | Yeah, seriously RevJP, are you just trying to be annoying by nit-picking semantics here? |
Perhaps I'm simply failing to word it in such a way that you can understand, or perhaps you simply choose not to understand it? FFT worded it differently:
| Quote: | Unless you're *edited for removal of unnecessary qualification* arguing that while it does imply the conclusions mainstream science has come up with you believe it also implies something else,
|
In truth I am arguing that it could imply the conclusions of mainstream scientists, but I reason that it implies something else.
I go back to 45's remarks; I spent a lot of time studying the logic and philosophy of science while getting my degree, and I can say that his observations are spot on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6779
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | 45 makes some good points regarding subjectivity/objectivity. One of the things he pointed out clearly is:
| Quote: | | Hell yes I'm subjective and 99.9% of all those scientists are subjective also. In fact it is their feigning objectivity that is a big part of the issue here. The only possibility for some one to honestly be "objective" is if they have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on a subject and admit it up front (hard to do in this world by the way). |
A clear point that was immediately ignored, misunderstood, or avoided in this rebuttal:
| P123 wrote: | | Science IS objective, or at least it is as objective as humans are ever going to get. The entire system is designed to eliminated biases. |
I fail to understand why you insist on juxtaposing the issues regarding the people involved with the mechanism involved. It is the people that are objected to, and their tendencies and motives, and not the mechanism. |
Maybe because the SYSTEM and MECHANISM keep the biases of the scientists IN CHECK??? (At least a million times more-so than any other system ever devised to keep human biases in check.)
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Yeah, seriously RevJP, are you just trying to be annoying by nit-picking semantics here? |
Perhaps I'm simply failing to word it in such a way that you can understand, or perhaps you simply choose not to understand it? FFT worded it differently:
| Quote: | Unless you're *edited for removal of unnecessary qualification* arguing that while it does imply the conclusions mainstream science has come up with you believe it also implies something else,
|
In truth I am arguing that it could imply the conclusions of mainstream scientists, but I reason that it implies something else.
|
So in other words, you disagree that the evidence implies the conclusions which the scientists have come to.
Wait a second! This sounds strangely familiar:
| Quote: | | The expert scientists have lots of evidence which they say implies the conclusion that humans evolved from lower primates. You say that their evidence does NOT imply the conclusion. I get it. |
Seriously, is the problem here that I used 'which', when I should have written 'that'???
Your debating tactics of nit-picking semantic nuances are just another way of derailing a debate. You really shouldn't do this. It isn't honest.
Last edited by P1234567890 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
