Science is close-minded

[Thunderbird]

I realize that.

Do you realize how your post was initially off-topic? :)

No, :shrug: I think you are still pissed about the.. you know.

[Thunderbird]

Indeed, but the advancement of the science automatically builds a defense against creationists. It's a by-product of the science.

 

One Mod at a time please.:shrug:

[freeztar]

Another communication breakdown...:shrug:

 

I'm sending you a PM TBird.

[InfiniteNow]

Some assume theory is just about the black and white of fact or fiction.

The core of theoretical research is about collecting more information, this represents the dynamical aspect of theory. Information that can produces more insights.

 

Its not just about the facts, this is the easy part, but the generation of new information.

 

Since you've been referring repeatedly to a thread which I started, I will address your concern thusly.

 

Thunderbird, when you miss the point, you really miss it hard, bud. :shrug:

[Thunderbird]

Since you've been referring repeatedly to a thread which I started, I will address your concern thusly.

 

Thunderbird, when you miss the point, you really miss it hard, bud. :shrug:

Well that was clear....:)

[Thunderbird]

Another communication breakdown...:)

 

I'm sending you a PM TBird.

Great PM Frezee, truth and humor :shrug:. All is well my friend . ;)

[REASON]

First of all, thanks to freezbie for addressing T-bird's reply to my message so appropriately. I'll just add a few comments:

 

 

There is no serious debate in science if evolution takes place. the work in progress is about the mechanisms involved. Evolutionary biologist do not work to advance arguments to defend evolution against creationist, they are working to advance science. Do you get my drift.

 

There may not be any serious debate among scientists, but there sure is among members posting here at Hypo and those around the world viewing these threads. I think the thread Evolution is Fact is directed at creationists.

 

I do get your drift relative to science though and I agree.

 

 

The term "established theory" means a working model that scientist utilize in the past to further an understanding of natural process, that is all. If you start defending it as anything more than that you will be trapped by it. Natural process will always be more complex than the models used to describe them.

 

It is not my intention to defend "established theories" against anything but misinformation, misinterpretation, and distortion. It is in this type of defence that many feel science becomes "closed-minded." "Established theories" are always vulnerable to new evidence which may be contrary, or provide enhancement.

 

I agree with your last statement above.

 

 

Our views of science are fundamentally at odds then. In my view attacking the integrity of established theory with a hypothesis based on new data is good science, as opposed to you're view that protecting the integrity of a model against a group who's views are of 0 importance in science.

 

I don't think we're fundamentally at odds in this regard. My implication was that established theories supported by empirical evidence should be protected from speculation and hypothetical interpretations that are not supported by evidence. I think you have misrepresented my statement, which is an example of what I mean.

 

 

Where you and differ is you think attacking an evolutionary models is going to break it. I think attacking it will make it evolve into something better.

 

Sorry. This is not what I think. How about if I said that your need to "attack" the establishment has to do with something else other than the advancement of science, like some longstanding personal resistance to authority? Would it be appropriate for me to make such a claim? I don't think so.

 

I am all about the improvement of scientific knowledge. I resist attempts to use unsubstantiated claims to distort what we have come to understand so far. I also admit that because I am not a scientist, I will defer to scientific experts in their respective fields.

 

 

You are going to have to be specific about “data” you just cannot say show me data. When there hasn't been any specific claim that calls for data.

 

The freezed one already correctly responded to this. He is a man of vast wisdom and understanding. :shrug:

[Thunderbird]

Freeze does have it right in the pm he sent me about falsely assumed by some of being a clever creationist. {oxymoron }He has known for a good wile that I am not. This did frustrate the conversation with other Mods that seemed to be stuck in this defensive mode. I just wanted to have discussion about science vs. science, just because I have a interest and I think a facility for it. So when I was repeatedly spoke down to on a subject that I have spent so much time studying,... well I’m sure you guy’s know the feeling . I had went though my period a few years ago of debating this on the ARN board and made peace with some that could hold the two paradigms as separate but equal. The purely spiritual, and the purely scientific, so I let go of the debate and realized the enemy was not a group of people, but rather ignorance and arrogance. I also find that science is better served by advancing new ideas into the spotlight of debate. This way I can see how they hold up under scrutiny. I do realize however that the Mods are educating the pubic of what science is, what evolution is, and it is necessary to defend against those who have an agenda, but I no longer see them as much of a threat {court cases }, I just see ignorance that can be assuaged best by not getting into an entrenched debate, but rather a discussion on the new finding’s that are advancing our understanding of life. Its more fun and I have started threads and post on subjects such as metamorphosis and evolution, Qm and evolution, but they do not get near the attention as some hard headed kook with an agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knowledge stands on one leg, and requires balance and attention.

Truth stands on its own two strong legs, and requires no proof.

Allen Mills

[InfiniteNow]

From Tom over at Swans on Tea today:

 

 

Swans on Tea Indexing

[Thunderbird]

From Tom over at Swans on Tea today:

 

 

Swans on Tea Indexing

:thumbs_do

[InfiniteNow]

:(

 

Thunderbird,

 

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and assume that you don't have the faintest clue what indexing is, nor why it's even funnier that he even put it on an index card.

 

 

Gosh. Everyone's a critic. :thumbs_do

[Thunderbird]

..:thumbs_do...er ...eh..:doh:..Oh now I get it....:(

[Qfwfq]

Everyone knows that faith in the absence of evidence is really damned stupid.

I don't know this, I only know that it isn't the scientific method. <_<

 

No logical argument can prove the existence of god, none can disprove it.

 

Paul Dirac's religion

Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and as scientists honesty is our precise duty—we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination.... I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another...." Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks, but when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet.'" Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac.

Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0061316229.

 

I suggest it's time for everyone to grow a spine and say, "You know what? I don't really care if you're offended. It offends me how stupid you are for believing such ridiculous nonsense."

 

It's time to stop pussyfooting around, grow some balls, and take a stand when it comes to steering the proverbial rudder of our society's future maturation.

Imposing atheism is just as regime-like as imposing a religious faith.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm not imposing anything but my own disdain for this centuries old nonsense. You are welcome to believe whatever iron age fairy tales and believe in any purple unicorns you want. However, I'm also welcome to think you're an ignorant moron who holds childish beliefs in return.

 

 

What an old thread to bump, and an old comment to respond to, Q. Trying to bait me?

[Qfwfq]

I'm not imposing anything but my own disdain for this centuries old nonsense.

Exactly what I said.

 

You are welcome to know that I'm not religious at all, I simply respect those that have faith and understand it being just as much of a necessity as that which we all have for many other emotions. You're also welcome to look up a bit of hermeneutics during your holiday and to note that, while it is common to take scriptures literally in some places (such as the Bible Belt), most Christians or Jews around the world do not. Wouldn't it be more constructive to encourage more schools to teach the subject? Your tit-for-tat is utterly useless, quite aside from its disparity. You are also welcome to spend your holiday attempting to find a logical and scientific conclusive argument, that I'd be unable to refute, proving that no whatsoever god exists. Let me know when you've posted it, if I'll still be online I'll be waiting for it...

 

What an old thread to bump, and an old comment to respond to, Q.

Sheeeeeesh, yo's dang' right brother! This whole thing's between 4 and 5 months old, ya can just smell the rot and the dusty mould it's covered in and choke on it! Mea maxima culpa! Since I've not been around much this summer, I've just plain missed the chance to give my own input on the topic and I should just pound salt until the next bus comes along?

 

You see InfiniteNow, I was looking into your behaviour, due to your recent and less recent infractions (on posts also reported by ordinary members) and I found that one example included the typical kind of futile atheist argument and I just had to reply; just couldn't help it. Your insolent rebuttal is only an extra item on the list, so don't think your holiday is due to me taking it personally; it's a consensus of mods with no objections.

 

Trying to bait me?

As the gasping fish yelled while flopping around in the hull of the fisherman's boat...

[Galapagos]

I don't know this, I only know that it isn't the scientific method. :shrug:

 

No logical argument can prove the existence of god, none can disprove it.

 

Paul Dirac's religion

 

Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0061316229.

 

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

No argument can disprove the teapot, none can prove it. The same goes for living in the matrix.

For a modern, informed, educated person, I would say it is pretty unreasonable to believe in Celestial Teapots, The One and The Matrix, or God.

 

 

Imposing atheism is just as regime-like as imposing a religious faith.

 

Has anyone been imposing/forcing anything here? I believe Inow is advocating a position of Conversational Intolerance. I have never seen Inow make a post about imposing on or forcing anyone to be atheist, although I have seen more than one regular poster here accuse him of doing so.

 

I would also like to point out(as S. Harris has) that we do not have to force anyone to not believe that Elvis marauds the aisles at Wal-Mart to keep people who believe this form occupying our board rooms, or the oval office. Anyone who professes a belief in Elvis is immediately marked as unqualified for such positions. No forcing/imposing of Elvis-atheism necessary.

I think everyone should be treated with courtesy, but the beliefs of others should only be respected when they make sense.

[modest]

I think, Galapagos, the point is...

 

We would not tolerate some member of Jehovah's Witness or Scientology attacking people of differing philosophical opinions saying they are "ignorant morons" or the like. Common etiquette tells us this is inappropriate and it's against the rules in any case. The situation is made all the worse when neither position can be proven.

 

I just got done telling someone in another thread (who was claiming of all things that science is close-minded) that science takes no position on unprovable metaphysical things like God. Meanwhile, what has been advocated in this thread is the outright attack of those with such a philosophy. That is neither appropriate for the forum nor is it a method of science. I don't see how the teapot changes that.

 

~modest