And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:46:24 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>> The problem is that you cannot do a research about something without
>> being at least a bit convinced that indeed your ideas are right... It
>> does not prevent from being open-minded but at some point it will be a
>> matter of opinion, if two theories explain the facts.
>
>   There's a difference between an attitude like "I think this is a very
> plausible theory, and I'm going to try to find even more evidence to
> support it", and "this theory is the truth, and anyone who doubts it
> is nuts and deserves ridicule".
>
>   You can find the latter attitude in all kind of people, from complete
> laymen to amateur scientists to professional scientists. Sure, not *all*
> people are like that, but many are.
>
>   I don't disagree that any pseudoscientist or religious fanatic who
> presents completely unscientifical and implausible claims with no proof
> nor evidence deserves to be ignored and if such claims get widespread, it
> very much deserves scientifical debunking.
>
>   However, debunking and ridicule are two different things. The former
> shows scientifical thinking, the latter shows arrogance.

'to allow these people to share the stage with scientists and debate their  
points is to automatically elevate these ideas  to the same level of  
science' Scientists ask "What if?" and seek out evidence that shows either  
right or wrong; pseudo-scientists start with "What if?" and look for  
evidence that shows them to be correct; Religious fanatics start with   
"This is!" and need to look no further. You can't debunk "This is!" with  
evidence, you're trying to integrate two entirely different systems.

>   Another typical attitude is that anyone who presents even the slightest
> opposition to the idea that evolution is the whole Truth, that the  
> evolution
> theory presents exactly and accurately what happened, must be a  
> creationist.
> The attitude seems to be "if you can't present any counter-arguments or
> scientifically plausible alternative theories, then you simply must  
> believe
> in the theory of evolution as presented". It's as if it was completely
> unscientifical and illogical to doubt a theory if there exists no  
> plausible
> alternative.
> And in this case, if you doubt it, you must be a creationist.
> There is no other possibility. Of course this is also a logical fallacy.

No not really, feel free to doubt it. if you do then you must have a  
reason to do so, which implies you have another theory (unless you're  
saying that you don't like a theory as it doesn't explain everything, in  
which case welcome to a permanent state of not liking things). If that  
theory also explains the evidence or better yet also sheds light on areas  
the old theory keeps dark great. Just don't invoke anything outside the  
evidence, otherwise we'll be drowning in angels, elfs, imps and we might  
as well all join the Church of Last Thursday.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message