|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2007 : 22:19:42 [Permalink]
|
Ricky:
I swear... I'd rather pull teeth. Hell, I'd rather pull my own teeth, without a local. |
Hey Ricky, don't get your knickers into a bind. Who cares what Jerome thinks? He was wrong when he entered this thread and he will still be wrong when we get to page fifteen. He is impervious to correction.
He is either messing with us or he is as clueless as his posts suggest. Either way, what does it matter? It's just Jerome being Jerome.
At this point in the thread, any lurkers know that evolution can be both a fact and a theory. And they know that the word theory in a scientific context does not convey the same meaning as a theory in common usage, which is more of a synonym for hypothesis.
And, if they have half a brain, they also know that the word hypothesis in science has a precise meaning, like all words in science do, so it can't mean the same thing as a theory.
But lets look at a dictionary, as some people here like to do, just to make sure.
| —Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis. |
Gosh, that wasn't so hard to do…
And my guess is that most people are not bothered by the different meaning a word might have in another context once they understand what that difference is. After all, many people are in professions that make use of common words in a way that might not be immediately understood by those outside of thier profession.
What else matters?
Slightly edited.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2007 : 01:05:59 [Permalink]
|
Sooo, playing idiotic word games again, eh.... What, have these fora been taken over by high school freshmen with a couple of stolen six-packs?
Y'know, it seems that whenever Jerome starts running out of gas, he throws some sort of stupid shit like that into the conversation. Hey Jerome, it's called a Red Herring, and it's a logical fallacy that advances neither your argument nor your overall credibility, is not even amusing to read, and certainly nothing like informative. It is also downright dishonest, and makes you look like an idiot.
The whole thing is really very simple. From the link in the OP: You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
|
And so forth. How is that difficult to understand? Even an ignorant redneck like myself has no problem grasping it.
I have a hypothesis theory fact: Jerome, you are being obstinate for no better reason than obstinacy's own sake. You have no argument so you play the fool to compensate.
Have you ever considered joining the Republican Party?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2007 : 02:56:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I have been saying that arguments about evolution use words in a manner that purposely obscure the discussion. I am saying that the link in the OP expressly points this technique out; in fact, glorifies the technique. This is nothing less than amphiboly.
As I am sure you know, if a talk is begun with an fallacious argument the argument is generally given less credence. The fact that this type of argument is presented as proper makes a mockery of the science and the real arguments that could be had.
|
And we are trying to make you understand that your problems with the link in the OP comes from your lack of understanding of the English language.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 10:23:05 [Permalink]
|
I can't believe I spent my lunch catching up with a thread that I have essentially read a dozen times. Jerome making an argument, being shown the flaws in his argument, refusing to acknowledge those flaws, and repeating his argument.
emphasis added
Originally posted by Kil
Hey Ricky, don't get your knickers into a bind. Who cares what Jerome thinks? He was wrong entered this thread and he will still be wrong when we get to page fifteen. He is impervious to correction.
He is either messing with us or he is as clueless as his posts suggest. Either way, what does it matter? It's just Jerome being Jerome.
|
Absolutely. Jerome has already reached his conclusion, he is impervious to correction, his quest for knowledge is over. Anything he views as not supporting his conclusion is wrong. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 12:23:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Many times they are wrong, and those defending their science are, therefore, defending that which is not true. |
Who has been defending wrong science? Anyone in particular?
|
My point is not to highlight individuals who profess bad science. My point is that, as Fility so elegantly put it, "scientists get it wrong all the time." So therefore, by default, bad science is defended as truth all the time. Science is not the end all be all of truth, in fact, in many cases, it can be the converse of truth.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 12:29:17 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by H. Humbert |
| No, but they have a stranglehold on the only method of uncovering truth. There is no other game in town. Your options for finding truth are science or science. |
1. Does not change the fact that science can and has been wrong before, and will be wrong again. Simply saying, "I came to my conclusion using scientific methods", is not a default for truth. In the words of one SFN legend, "Scientists get it wrong all the time."
2. Materialists/Atheists/Humanists do not hold exclusivity to "science." If they agree with it then they call it science and if they don't agree with it then it is dismissed. *sigh* Somehow they must agree with the notion or the term science is not allowed. Again this is laughable, even it they are given exclusivity on "science" we know that science "gets it wrong many times" so this is not exclusivity on truth like they would like you to think that it is.
| They are defending the best answer available at any given time. |
Does not change the fact that what they are defending is wrong. And this may be the "best answer available" in the eye of the beholder.
| These answers are only ever replaced by better answers which get us closer to the truth. |
Or they get us farther away from the truth. Don't forget, "scientists get it wrong all the time."
| The beauty of this is that scientists correct themselves, or are corrected by other scientists. |
But nothing can assure us that these corrections are not just more inaccuracies as "scientists get it wrong all the time."
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 12:35:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
| The beauty of this is that scientists correct themselves, or are corrected by other scientists. |
100% of the time? Say no. Therefore that which is not true is passed along as truth, under the banner of “science.” |
Right, but that isn't a valid reason for dismissing any science you choose.
|
Nor is it a valid reason to promote any science you choose
| You need to have evidence to backup your accusations of falsehood, otherwise your suspicions are rejected on the grounds of being grossly prejudiced and unreasonable. |
Which is why I dismiss macro evolution. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 12:37:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
|
| Scientists get it wrong all the time. |
The honesty is refreshing. “Scientist” do not have a strangle hold on truth. Many times they are wrong, and those defending their science are, therefore, defending that which is not true.
| The beauty of this is that scientists correct themselves, or are corrected by other scientists. |
100% of the time? Say no. Therefore that which is not true is passed along as truth, under the banner of “science.”
|
Yes Bill, every single time up to and including abandoning the research as a failure. There is little to be gained for the scientist or for the layman from incorrect hypothesis, and very little gets past scientific peer review.
|
So your saying that 100% of science inaccuracies are corrected 100% of the time? You have a lot more "faith" is this religon then I do. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 12:38:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Which is why I dismiss macro evolution.
|
Because of your gross prejudice and unreason? Well, at least you can admit it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/23/2007 12:38:28 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 12:43:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Many times they are wrong, and those defending their science are, therefore, defending that which is not true. |
Who has been defending wrong science? Anyone in particular?
|
My point is not to highlight individuals who profess bad science. My point is that, as Fility so elegantly put it, "scientists get it wrong all the time." So therefore, by default, bad science is defended as truth all the time. Science is not the end all be all of truth, in fact, in many cases, it can be the converse of truth.
|
Bill, you should have posted the entire quote. As I recall, it had to do with the flawed research being corrected and failing that, abandoned.
Quote mining is not cool.... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 12:56:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Bill scott
Which is why I dismiss macro evolution.
|
Because of your gross prejudice and unreason? Well, at least you can admit it.
|
Sure, I have no problem admitting that I dismiss Macro evolution. "Prejudice and unreason" are just your unfounded accusations when one chooses to dismiss your "science" and your religious beliefs. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 13:00:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by H. Humbert
No, but they have a stranglehold on the only method of uncovering truth. There is no other game in town. Your options for finding truth are science or science. |
1. Does not change the fact that science can and has been wrong before, and will be wrong again. Simply saying, "I came to my conclusion using scientific methods", is not a default for truth. In the words of one SFN legend, "Scientists get it wrong all the time." |
Science is the most truthful answer at any given time. There are no substitutes. There are no alternative "truths." Your options are to conditionally accept science's best answer at the moment or settle for no answer.
| 2. Materialists/Atheists/Humanists do not hold exclusivity to "science." If they agree with it then they call it science and if they don't agree with it then it is dismissed. *sigh* |
This is idiotically wrong, bill. Truth is not decided by what "scientists" agree with, but by what agrees with reality.
| Somehow they must agree with the notion or the term science is not allowed. |
No, mythology doesn't get to label itself science, that is true.
| Again this is laughable, even it they are given exclusivity on "science" we know that science "gets it wrong many times" so this is not exclusivity on truth like they would like you to think that it is. |
I already corrected you on this. Science holds the exclusive method for uncovering truth. Is it perfect? Admittedly not. But it's better than nothing. It's better than accepting answers with no basis in fact. That's called fiction, bill, and it is the opposite of "truth."
| They are defending the best answer available at any given time. |
Does not change the fact that what they are defending is wrong. And this may be the "best answer available" in the eye of the beholder. |
Except what they are defending is almost never 100% wrong. We're talking about minor corrections. Small tweaks. Not the sort of monumental flaws which would allow an ignoramus like yourself to dismiss whole fields of science as flat out "wrong."
| These answers are only ever replaced by better answers which get us closer to the truth. |
Or they get us farther away from the truth. Don't forget, "scientists get it wrong all the time." |
No. It's impossible to move backward. Science works like a ratchet. Each new finding is incorporated into previous findings so that progress is steadily made in a single direction. The thing you hope for, that all of the progress made on uncovering the fact of evolution over the last century and a half will magically turn out to be "wrong" and totally reverse itself, is an impossibility. It will never happen.
| The beauty of this is that scientists correct themselves, or are corrected by other scientists. |
But nothing can assure us that these corrections are not just more inaccuracies as "scientists get it wrong all the time." |
Boy, you sure are trying to get a hell of a lot of mileage out of that one phrase, aren't you Billy Boy? Maybe you should actually try to comprehend what people are trying to hammer into your thick skull instead of trying to twist other people's word into mischaracterizations of their positions, mm-kay?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 13:02:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
|
Bill, you should have posted the entire quote. As I recall, it had to do with the flawed research being corrected and failing that, abandoned.
Quote mining is not cool....
|
Failed research on top of failed research is irrelevant to my point. My point was/is that science is not the sole keeper of truth. You paraphrased this for me very nicely my stating that "Scientists get it wrong much of the time." I simply agree
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 13:05:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Failed research on top of failed research is irrelevant to my point. My point was/is that science is not the sole keeper of truth. You paraphrased this for me very nicely my stating that "Scientists get it wrong much of the time." I simply agree. |
Except that implicit in that quote is the idea that science gets it right most of the time.
And if you wish to contest the idea that "science is the sole keeper of truth," then come up with another method which can claim to get it right any of the time. Religion certainly doesn't fit that description.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
