|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/12/2009 : 13:26:53 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
| When you hear a particular claim, you may like to think that you stop at, "well it came from person X, so I don't have to think about it." but I contest that this never actually happens, and I believe it would be a sad day for science if it ever did. |
Sure, I agree. But that isn't precisely what I mean.
In the OP The Rat suggests we are engaging in a fallacy of logic if we roll our eyes (literally or figuratively) at the mention of certain sources. Fred Phelps, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Of Pandas And People, for example.
If a person with unknown credibility presents you with a specific claim I agree that you have to stop and take a look at it. I agree that there is a benefit to addressing all the wrong claims made by Phelps, Ham, et al, if nothing else it helps us understand the information better, and maybe helps another person understand it as well.
But I have no problem putting a provisional "false" truth value to anything sourced to those people (on the specific topics they are always so wrong about, Phelps-Gays, Ham/Hovind-evolution, biology, geology, etc), even before hearing it. I have no problem telling people not to trust anything they hear from those sources.
No, not at all. All I'm saying is that if you want an accurate trust value of a particular claim, you need to look at the claim itself. You seem to be stating that you'd say claim X isn't trust worthy because the people who made it aren't, and stop there. In reality, you know precisely why that claim is bogus (or not). And in the rare case that you don't, then if you don't want to find out why, I'd say you have a lack of curiosity that is rather odd for those who have an appreciation of science.
|
With regard to claims that fall in my fleid of study, yes, I can recognize reality from fiction. Same for you with the mathematics.
And yes, if I were to stumble into something I was not familiar with I would personally try to locate some accurate data. If I were to read something new about evolution in a popular science magazine and I wanted to verify the accuracy of this new data I would certainly not turn to Ken Ham's website, would I? I'm sure you would call me six different kinds of stupid, deservedly so, if I did!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
Ad hominems, again
