> 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".
> 

And which one you think is more common among creationists?
What do you think happens when a tenant of the first attitude tries to
discuss the matter with a tenant of the second attitude? No discussion
is possible, that's what happens.

> 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.
> 

Debunking has been done and redone and re-re-done, at some stage it
needs to stop.

Problem is a vast portion of the population is not used to scientific
thinking. Many people are ready to follow the one who appears convinced
of holding the truth. The problem is that religious nutcases are far
more convincing at that than scientists. Ridiculing a religious nutcase

Tartuffe...

It's that or let a portion of the population follow a way of thinking
that has proved dangerous over and over in history. People who are going
to swallow the nonsense spread all over this museum are not going to be
convinced by scientific debunking. By ridicule there is a tiny chance
that they realize the problem, and then learn. Ultimately, education is
the answer, but there has to be an initial impulse, and it will not be
science.

I'm all for doubting a theory as long as something else, new experiments
or a new interpretation of the old ones at least, is offered that makes
some sense. Doubting for the sake of doubting is not really interesting,
because then you doubt, and then what? Does not make the established
theory any less true, and does not bring us closer to the Truth, in as
much as it exists...

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

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

Genesis says:
First God made heaven & earth
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;
and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters

Sefer Berechit says (attached pic):




I am sure they do not tell the same story.

Bruno

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gen1_1-5.jpg' (51 KB)

Preview of image 'gen1_1-5.jpg'

Tim Attwood wrote:
> vehemence of anti-Christian rhetoric lately

This wasn't anti-Christian rhetoric, tho. It is clear the author is 
indeed Christian. This is anti-Stupidity rhetoric.

Don't confuse "bashing stupid Christian's stupidity" with "bashing 
stupid Christian's Christianity".

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
> Warp a ?crit :
> > 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".

> And which one you think is more common among creationists?

  Who was talking about creationists? I wasn't. I was talking about
scientists.

  Or are you trying to say that since creationists ridicule scientists
it then becomes ok for scientists to ridicule creationists? That's
flawed logic.

> What do you think happens when a tenant of the first attitude tries to
> discuss the matter with a tenant of the second attitude? No discussion
> is possible, that's what happens.

  That's why it's impossible to discuss with some scientists (or, more
usually, scientist wannabes).

> > 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.
> > 

> Debunking has been done and redone and re-re-done, at some stage it
> needs to stop.

  So the next logical step is to start mocking and ridiculing? Yes, that
makes a whole lot of sense.

> Ridiculing a religious nutcase
> is in my opinion a valid weapon to use.

  Valid for what purpose? It certainly isn't constructive and can only
make things worse.

> I'm all for doubting a theory as long as something else, new experiments
> or a new interpretation of the old ones at least, is offered that makes
> some sense. Doubting for the sake of doubting is not really interesting,

  That's exactly the flawed logic. "Since there's no alternative plausible
theory, this theory must be true."

> because then you doubt, and then what?

  I don't even understand what you mean by that. Are you talking
philosophically now? Do you get some kind of existentialist crisis
if you doubt something and have no plausible alternative theory?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Anti-christian atheists 

By the way, the author isn't an atheist, and atheists aren't 
anti-christian, they're anti-theist. :-)


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

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.

  "I don't know an explanation for this, and this presented explanation
seems too implausible to me" is a perfectly valid way of thinking, even
scientifically. You don't need an alternative theory to be able to do
that in a completely rational and valid basis.

  Take any unsolved question in science, which science has yet not an
answer to, and present the theory "it happens because invisible gnomes
do it from inside the Earth". Even if the scientist doesn't have any
alternative theory to that, it's still completely valid for him to doubt
that presented 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).

  Is this some kind of philosophical question now? Do you get an
existentialist crisis if there's something you don't know how and
why it works?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> and atheists aren't anti-christian, they're anti-theist. :-)

  In my experience the majority of self-proclaimed atheists vehemently
oppose christianity, usually much more than any other religions. Usually
they have a more or less indifferent attitude towards other religions,
while loudly opposing anything related to christianity.

  (I have even witnessed extreme cases, where devoted atheists have had
a *positive* attitude towards other religions, up to the point where they
frown upon criticising them, while still loudly criticising christianity.)

  Ok, I admit it, I'm falling into making the same kind of generalization
as the "anyone who opposes the evolution theory is a creationist". OTOH,
in my experience in many cases it's just true.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Wouldn't that be, "Why it doesn't make sense to doubt it?"

Yah. Forgive me. I've been ill. :-)

> this guy makes some common mistakes. First one is suggesting that their 
> are some huge number of *possible* combinations that would work. Really? 
> How does he determine this? 

Actually, I read somewhere that someone had figured out (well after that 
article was written) that there are something like 12 different 
isomorphic ways you can arrange the codons to do the same job. So 
instead of 41^22! or whatever it was, there were at least 12. :-)

> do anything at all, such as INC X followed immediately by DEC X. 

That's a completely different point. That just means there are genes 
that don't code for anything. He's assuming that there's no good reason 
for the bit patterns in the instruction set to be arranged in any given 
pattern for a particular instruction.

> But none of that really matters, since the article says *nothing* about 
> the likelihood of macro vs. micro,

So here's the question: What is "macro vs micro"?  How do you know when 
you have "macro" evolution? What makes something of two "kinds"?

I suspect you'll wind up coming up with a tautologically false answer, 
if you want to invent something that hasn't been observed.

> There is nothing in there that would suggest denial of common descent of 
> macro evolution.

Sorry. I meant it as an explanation of evidence in favor of common 
descent, regardless of how I misworded the original statement.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for the
>>> sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
>>> There was no other point.
> 
>> Yes. And I feel it's entirely appropriate to mock people who are trying 
>> to get others to act in self-destructive ways.
> 
>   Mocking for the sake of mocking is not constructive nor helpful. It only
> increases aversion between different groups.

Yes. I want to mock the stupid dangerous group in order that people who 
hear my mocking might avoid them, or recognise how silly they are.

> Is that really the correct way of doing things?

If I could figure out how to make the stupid dangerous group less stupid 
or less dangerous, that would obviously be the right way to go. In my 
experience, religion is illogical (in the mathematical sense of the 
word), so it's almost impossible to convince someone to change their 
religion with mere evidence. You have to get to the unreasoning 
emotional underpinning. Of the various ways to do that, mocking would 
seem to be the least damaging and easiest to control.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message