Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Are you *still* thinking Warp was arguing against evolution?

  In that post he answered I was certainly not. The only thing I did was
to question the notion of evidence being proof (of anything in general).

  He proceeded to write a lengthy novel about evidence pro evolution,
which is not what I was talking about, so he seems to think that I was
saying "evolution is not true". Whatever.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

The thing is you forget your post <473d6557@news.povray.org> that 
started the whole subthread, and that is not just about how it's bad to 
make fun of other people.

It was specifically about how *scientists* are arrogant, and how they 
have no justification mocking others and specifically about evolution 
theory.

To quote:

>   Have scientists learnt anything from this episode? It doesn't seem so.
> They are still arrogant, they still think they know the Truth, the only
> Truth and nothing but the Truth, and simply because they can't think of
> any other explanation. They think they can go back millions of years and
> see what happened, and thus their theory must the the only Truth, and
> anyone who doubts it is nuts and deserves ridicule. Over a hundred years
> ago scientists assumed that they could simply deduce what happens at
> atomic levels, extremely high speeds, etc, without actually "going there".
> They were wrong. Nowadays scientists assume that they can simply deduce what
> happened millions of years ago, without actually going there. But this must
> be the Truth.

(to me this last part implies pretty strongly things about evolution theory)

>  History tends to repeat itself. People never learn from past mistakes.
> People are arrogant and think they are omniscient and that they know the
> Truth. Anyone who doubts that deserves ridicule.

In fact I missed that last slip from "scientists" to "people" :-)

To me this reads pretty much as "scientists in general are arrogant" and 
"evolution theory is not better than any other". So I still consider you 
brought evolution theory, and the justifications behind scientific 
theories, in the debate yourself. And I still think it is insultive to 
the majority of scientists.

This is where you got strong opposition. Or am I reading things that are 
not there?

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:40:59 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> In article <473dd775@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
>>> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>   Once again, that is completely flawed logic.
>>>
>>>   There's no law in science which says that you must have an  
>>> alternative
>>> theory in order to reasonably doubt an existing theory.
>>>
>> Quite true. He got that much wrong.
>
> Well, he was right in the sense that if you doubt the theory is true  
> without any reason to do so, then you're behaving irrationally. Not  
> necessarily a bad thing, but not exactly scientific.

Well even an irrational reason is a reason, but what I did say was that it  
implies you have another theory not that you must have one.

>> If they stopped with, "I don't know, lets find an answer.", no one  
>> would have a problem with them, at least with respect to their position  
>> on science.
>
> I think if they asserted their views and actually had a willingness to  
> change their mind based on reality, people wouldn't ridicule nearly as  
> much. It isn't the creationism being ridiculed. It's the pigheaded  
> refusal to evaluate whether it might be wrong, even in the middle of a  
> scientific debate.
>
> I honestly think creationists would get far less ridicule if they just  
> said "our opinions differ, and I can't convince you, and you can't  
> convince me, so let's just each do our own thing." But they often try to  
> argue you into believing it for some reason.

Which was my second point regarding conflicting systems. You can't use an  
evidence-based structure to debate a faith-based one it's like taking a  
speedometer out of a car and debating over why it won't weigh potatoes.

>> Imho, if it wasn't given absurd levels of respect,
>
> Only some of it. Try taking off every thursday from work on the grounds  
> that you need to go worship Thor, and see how much slack you get from  
> your boss.

Become an atheist and declare every day to be special :-P

> And apparently Australia now has more write-in Jedi Knights on the  
> census than many of the other religions. Yet, oddly enough, Australia is  
> reluctant to recognise it as an official religion. Wonder why....

Too much broken grammar it would result in yes?

-- 
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

And lo on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:51:06 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>> Well that's OK. No theory is ever correct.
>
>   I just wish all those "I *know* theory X is true" people would
> understand that.

They're being attacked by people who view everything in a true/false way,  
say that any theory doesn't explain such-and-such and they'll jump on it  
like a pack of hungry dogs to show the entire statement is 'false'.

-- 
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

And lo on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:17:40 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

>   Btw, why is it that every time I express my opinion that we should
> respect other people and not make fun of them nor insult them, I get
> strong opposition? This is something that always keeps puzzling me.

Would you respect a footballer's conviction that he needs to tie his laces  
in a certain way before a match? How about an OCD's need to flick every  
light switch in the room on and off (or off and on) before he can do  
anything else? What about some person's conviction that he had to kill 12  
rabbits a day.

So at what level would you place religion - footballer, OCD, killer, or  
none? What happens if the footballer decides he *has* to tie his laces  
this way and no other, the OCD gets violent if anyone interupts their  
ritual (and I don't use that term lightly), or the killer moves up to dogs?

-- 
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

47415602@news.povray.org...

>  Your joke is getting old already.

Rabbits aren't known for their sense of humour either. They're a pretty 
uptight bunch. And why don't you discuss the validity of my theory? If 
you're not a rabbit, please prove it.

G.

Post a reply to this message

de news: 47417e17$1@news.povray.org...

> 47415602@news.povray.org...
>
>>  Your joke is getting old already.
>
> Rabbits aren't known for their sense of humour either.

I second that
I told "the Bear and the Rabbit" story  to my pet rabbit...
It didn't even smile :-s

Marc

Post a reply to this message

Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
> It was specifically about how *scientists* are arrogant, and how they 
> have no justification mocking others and specifically about evolution 
> theory.

  No, what I said was that some scientists (not all) have an arrogant
attitude and seem to know the truth, and they act all like the theory
of evolution was an axiom.

> >   Have scientists learnt anything from this episode? It doesn't seem so.
> > They are still arrogant, they still think they know the Truth, the only
> > Truth and nothing but the Truth, and simply because they can't think of
> > any other explanation. They think they can go back millions of years and
> > see what happened, and thus their theory must the the only Truth, and
> > anyone who doubts it is nuts and deserves ridicule. Over a hundred years
> > ago scientists assumed that they could simply deduce what happens at
> > atomic levels, extremely high speeds, etc, without actually "going there".
> > They were wrong. Nowadays scientists assume that they can simply deduce what
> > happened millions of years ago, without actually going there. But this must
> > be the Truth.

> (to me this last part implies pretty strongly things about evolution theory)

  I'm not saying anything about the veracity of the evolution theory there.
The only thing I'm talking about is the attitude of people.

> >  History tends to repeat itself. People never learn from past mistakes.
> > People are arrogant and think they are omniscient and that they know the
> > Truth. Anyone who doubts that deserves ridicule.

> In fact I missed that last slip from "scientists" to "people" :-)

> To me this reads pretty much as "scientists in general are arrogant" and 
> "evolution theory is not better than any other". So I still consider you 
> brought evolution theory, and the justifications behind scientific 
> theories, in the debate yourself. And I still think it is insultive to 
> the majority of scientists.

  But I was really just talking about the attitude of many people (especially
when they deal with the evolution theory), not really evolution theory in
itself.

> This is where you got strong opposition. Or am I reading things that are 
> not there?

  People opposed my view on this attitude problem I'm seeing, and that's
fine. But it's quite separate from the opposition to my opinion that people
should not be made fun of. That was a different claim with its own replies.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:17:40 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
> spake, saying:

> >   Btw, why is it that every time I express my opinion that we should
> > respect other people and not make fun of them nor insult them, I get
> > strong opposition? This is something that always keeps puzzling me.

> Would you respect a footballer's conviction that he needs to tie his laces  
> in a certain way before a match?

  I'm talking about respecting people, not about respecting their opinions.
I would not go and laugh at that person and make fun of him, especially not
publicly.

> How about an OCD's need to flick every  
> light switch in the room on and off (or off and on) before he can do  
> anything else? What about some person's conviction that he had to kill 12  
> rabbits a day.

  Nothing of this would make me mock those people publicly.

> So at what level would you place religion - footballer, OCD, killer, or  
> none? What happens if the footballer decides he *has* to tie his laces  
> this way and no other, the OCD gets violent if anyone interupts their  
> ritual (and I don't use that term lightly), or the killer moves up to dogs?

  What does this have to do with making fun of people?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:58:36 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> And lo on Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:17:40 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  
>> did
>> spake, saying:
>
>> >   Btw, why is it that every time I express my opinion that we should
>> > respect other people and not make fun of them nor insult them, I get
>> > strong opposition? This is something that always keeps puzzling me.
>
>> Would you respect a footballer's conviction that he needs to tie his  
>> laces
>> in a certain way before a match?
>
>   I'm talking about respecting people, not about respecting their  
> opinions.
> I would not go and laugh at that person and make fun of him, especially  
> not publicly.

So you can respect a person who has opinions counter to evidence and logic  
and will not change those opinions in the face of such?

>> How about an OCD's need to flick every
>> light switch in the room on and off (or off and on) before he can do
>> anything else? What about some person's conviction that he had to kill  
>> 12
>> rabbits a day.
>
>   Nothing of this would make me mock those people publicly.

What if they thought their actions were the only possible actions, the  
footballer starts a campaign for everyone to tie their laces just like  
him, the OCD claims the world would be a better place if everyone flicked  
switches on and off, if they were all completely immune to talk of logic  
and evidence and convinced that their way was the right and only way.  
Should we just let them be? see below for more.

>> So at what level would you place religion - footballer, OCD, killer, or
>> none? What happens if the footballer decides he *has* to tie his laces
>> this way and no other, the OCD gets violent if anyone interupts their
>> ritual (and I don't use that term lightly), or the killer moves up to  
>> dogs?
>
>   What does this have to do with making fun of people?

Because we've now moved on to respect. Should I hold the same level of  
respect for the people who believe the world was created in seven days as  
for the footballer tying his shoes, or the OCD or the killer. With the  
last two we'd treat their 'convictions' as things to remedy not respect,  
so why treat the first two any differently?

-- 
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